THE MUSEUM OF MEDITERRANEAN AND NEAR EASTERN ANTIQJUITIES
MEDELHAVSMUSEET
jiiANrOKU UüilAftT
ÜLC 'SJ 1964
BULLETIN
Number 3 1963
Digitized by
CONTENTS
Supplementary Notes on Finds from Ajia Irini in Cyprus
EINAR GJERSTAD 3
Kreta, Tiber und Stora Mellösa
Bemerkungen zu zwei Bronzeschwertem aus dem Tiber
EVERT BAUDOU 41
A Black-Figured Neck-Amphora of the Leagros Group
TULLU RÖNNE'UNDERS 54
A Republican Portrait from the Sabina
OLOF VESSBERG 67
Editorial and Distribution OfiBoe:
Medelbavsmuseet. Stoigatan 41, Stodtbolm ö, Sweden.
Digitized by v^ooQle
The Museum of Mediterranean and Near Eastern Antiquities
MEDELHAVSMUSEET
BULLETIN
Number 3 1963
Published by The Museum of Mediterranean and Near Eastern Antiquities (Medelhavsmuseet)
Digitized by LjOOQle
Published with the aid of a grant from Humanistiska Forskningsrädet.
® 1963 Medelhavsmuseet, Stockholm.
Stockholm 1963
Victor Pettcrsons Bokindustri AB
Digitized by
Supplementary Notes on Finds
from Ajia Irini in Cyprus
EINAR GJERSTAD
Introdnction
The village of Ajia Irini is situated not far from
the shore of the N.W. coast of Cyprus. A
sanctuary dose by this village was excavated by
the Swedish Cyprus Expedition in 1929—1930.
These excavations yielded results important for
our knowledge of the history of Cypriote religion
and the sculptural art of the island. The evidence
bearing upon the history of religion has been
studied by Erik SjöqvistS the architectural
remains and the objects found are published in
Swed, Cyp. Exp, II, pp. 642 ff. In time the finds
ränge from the final period of the Bronze Age,
Late Cypriote III, to c. 500 B.C., i.e. a short
time before the end of the Cypro-Archaic epoch,
with the addition of an insignificant revival of
the cult in the Hellenistic period after a com-
plete intemiption during the Cypro-Qassical
time. The cult practised in the sanctuary was
from the beginning a fertility cult and the deity
was conceived in the shape of a buU in the
religious ideas of the worshippers. In Late
Cypriote III (c. 1200—1050 B.C.) the sanctuary
consisted of a complex of rectangular houses
along the sides of a large, open court, with the
central building as the cult house proper, where
' Arch,f. ReL Wiss. XXX, 1932, pp. 308 ff.
all the cult requisites were found. In the be-
ginning of the Cypro-Geometric period, c.
1050 B.C., this sanctuary was covered by a
thick layer of sterile, red earth and on top of
the same a sanctuary of quite another type was
constructed: an open temenos of an irregularly
oval shape, surrounded by a peribolos wall of
red earth and with a low altar and a libation
table, dose by the altar, as a sacred centre.
The majority of the ex votos consisted of terra-
cotta bulls and from this we may infer that
the cult remained a cult of fertility and that the
deity was still conceived in the shape of abuU.
This Geometrie temenos lasted to the middle
of Cypro-Geometric III, c. 775 B.C., when the
sanctuary was subject to some modifications.
The peribolos wall was heightened and the
earlier altar was replaced by a new one in the
shape of a rectangular pillar. The majority of
the ex yotos deposed in this new temenos
consists of three dasses of sculptures: bull
statuettes, minotaurs, and human figures. The
minotaurs are composed of a bull’s body and
a human torso and head. They are represented
as adorants of the deity worshipped, as his
attendants. They indicate that for the strictly
theriomorphous conception of the deity had
been substituted an initial anthropomorphic
3
Digitized by v^ooQle
idea of the same, as also confirmed by the
statuettes of human shape. They are the first ex
votos of human sculptures at Ajia Irini and in
the subsequent periods this new category of
ex votos was developcd into the great art sculp-
ture of Cypro-Archaic I and II. Both in cult and
art the anthropomorphic idea becomes pre-
dominant. The great number of armed figures
among the votive sculptures, the chariot sta-
tuettes, etc. indicate that the deity was a god of
war as well as a god of fertility, whose attributes,
the thunderbolts (pp. 27, 40) show that his ca-
pacity of fertility also included the fertilizing rain:
in other words, he was a god of general protection
for the society, a theos sosipolis.
The particular importance of the votive
sculptures of Ajia Irini for the elucidation of the
history of Cypriote sculptural art during the
Archaic period lies in the fact that these sculp-
tures were found in stratigraphically distinct
contexts*, so that, for their chronological deter-
mination, we are not dependent solely on
stylistic criteria but have also supplementary
stratigraphical evidence. In the excavation re-
port the art sculpture* has been classified in a
* The stratification, as described in detail in the excava-
tion report, op. dt. II, pp. 797 ff., was in the Cypro-Archaic
period to a large extent formed by alluvial sand and gravel
brought down by heavy winter rains flooding the open air
sanctuary on several occasions: in the early part of Cypro-
Archaic II, about the middle of that period and at the
beginning of its final phase, in absolute figures, c. 560, 540,
and 500 B.C. After the inundations of c. 560 and 540 B.C.
the new floor of the sanctuary was levelled on top of the
alluvial material but the earlier sculptures were left on
their original level, and new sculptures were deposed on
the each time raised level. The small statuettes Standing on
the floor inundated c. 560 B.C. were finally entirely covered
by the alluvium and the larger sculptures almost entirely,
or up to the breast, or waist etc. dependent on their height.
* In op. dt. p. 777, the various categories of sculptures
represented at Ajia Irini have been distinguished: the ma-
jority of the small and larger statuettes are pure idol
plastic, i.e., they are not of an artistic, but only a sacred
nature, not produced with artistic intentions, but only for
religious purposes, to be used as votive offerings; only the
sculptures bering the impress of an incontestable and
clearly artistic character may be classified as art sculpture,
only these sculptures are stylistically determinable, if by
style is meant an artistic norm producing an intended
artistic shape; within the idol plastic no styles, only types
can be distinguished; there are also several mixed speci-
mens between these two categories (cf. pp. 36 f., 39).
number of local styles and the stratified levels
have been used to mark the sequence of the
local periods. In the general Classification of the
material imdertaken in Swed. Cyp. Exp. IV:2,
these local styles have been grouped together
into a number of general styles and for the local
periods general chronological periods have been
substituted. The general styles of the art sculp-
ture in question are: First Proto-Cypriote,
Second Proto-Cypriote, Neo-Cypriote, and Ar-
chaic-Greek.
For the interrelations of these local and general
styles I refer to Swed. Cyp. Exp. IV :2, p. 93^.
In this paper I shall use the terms of the general
Classification when dealing with the art sculpture
but for the aninud statuettes and the human
figurines belonging to the category called idol pla-
stic (pp. 38 f.) I shall use the terms of the minute
Classification of the different types of this plastic
made in the excavation report, because these
types are more confined to a specific locality
than the styles of the art sculpture and the terms
for denoting the types of the idol plastic in the
general Classification made in Swed. Cyp. Exp.
IV comprise necessarily too many varieties
and cannot therefore be used to indicate pre-
cisely one local variety.
For the relation of the local Ajia Irini periods
and those of the general chronology I refer to
Swed. Cyp. Exp. IV:2, pp. 191, 197 f., 207«. It
goes without saying that these periods overlap
each other, the intervals of the local periods, as
mentioned (n. 2), being dependent on the time
of inundations caused by winter floods. In cases
*’ From the diagram, loc. dt., it can be seen that the Ajia
Irini styles I and II correspond to the First Proto-Cypriote
style, the Ajia Irini styles III and IV correspond to the
S^ond Proto-Cypriote style, the Ajia Irini styles V and VI
correspond to the Neo-Cypriote style, the i^ia Irini style
VII corresponds to the Archaic Q^ro-Greek style.
‘ Op. dt., pp. 125 ff.
* It can be seen that the local Period 1 falls within Late
Cypriote III, Period 2 covers Cypro-Geometric I. II and
lasted until the middle of Cypro-Geometric III, F^od 3
from the latter date until about the middle of Q^ro-
Archaic I, i.e. c. 650 B.C., Period 4 from that date untü the
early phase of Cypro-Archaic II, or in absolute figures c.
560 B.C., Period 5 from c. 560 to 540 B.C. and Period 6
from c. 540 to 500 B.C.
4
Digitized by LiOOQle
where required for a chronological precision
reference to the local periods will be made in
this paper, otherwise the terms of the general
chronology will be used.
ln accordance with the principles of the
publication of the excavation reports of the
Swedish Cyprus Expedition, the finds from the
sanctuary at Ajia Irini were published when the
fragmentary objects had becn mended to such
an extent that a material had been obtained
that was considered to be sufficient to form a
basis for the chronological and historical con-
clusions. When the objects found on every ex-
cavation site had been prepared for publication
in this way there remained, however, consider-
able fragments of pottery, sculptures, etc.,
which were brought to Sweden for studies and
for further mending. It will take a long time
before all this fragmentary material has been
thoroughly examined and mended but it is work
that is profitable from a scientific point of
view and will also supply the Museum of Medi-
terranean Antiquities with many valuable new
acquisitions obtained from the material already
existing in the museum.
For some time Mr. Toulis Souidos has been
systcmatically working on the fragments of
lerracottas from Ajia Irini for the purpose of
putting together the still disjecta membra and
the results of his efforts are very satisfactory
from several points of view. When Dr. Vessberg
invited me to publish a paper on these partly
new, partly restored finds from Cyprus I accepted
his Invitation with pleasure as it offered me a
desirable opportunity to retum for a while to
my old hunting grounds. A well known proverb
says: ”Love does not tamish with age.”
I wish to emphasize that the sculptures dealt
with here do not include all those from Ajia
Irini restored by Mr. Souidos. The restored
terracotta figures not considered here belong,
however, entirely to the category of idol plastic
which is already represented by many similar
specimens and their restoration includes only
minor details, falling within the sphere of
museal preservation but of no particular scien-
tific interest. On the other hand it should be
noted that some interesting fragmentary sculp-
tures have been left out of consideration in this
paper, in the hope that the missing parts will
be found in the course of continued restoration
work. It is therefore not out of the question that
there will be material for a second supplementary
note on the Ajia Irini sculptures to be published
on a later occasion.
Surveying the scientific results of the res-
toration work we can sum them up in the
foUowing way: no evidence has appeared in-
consistent with the historical conclusions drawn
from the material existing at the time of the
publication of the excavation report but several
interesting particulars have been added to our
picture of the section of ancient life in Cyprus as
revealed by the finds from Ajia Irini. These
particulars will be summed up in the final
chapter of this paper.
Düring my work in preparing this paper Mr.
Bror Millberg, draughtsman at the Museum of
Mediterranean Antiquities, has rendered me
invaluable Service in many ways for which I
wish to express my sincerest thanks to him,
and it is also a pleasure to acknowledge a very
instructive discussion with Mr. Tom Möller,
sculptor and teacher at Konstfackskolan, Stock-
holm, about some technical problems connected
with the sculptures from Ajia Irini.
Object register
N. B. Clay and slip are described only when not mcn-
tioned in the excavation report and measures are given
only in case the parts added to the objects have changed
their principal dimensions.
POTTERY
No. 2414 (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, p. 763;. White
Painted IV— V amphora; the second handle and
parts of the shoulder and rim added; somewhat
drooping rim; the vertical lines dividing the
metope decoration on the shoulder are more
or less rippled; the outer line of the concentric
circles, both those on the shoulder and the
neck, is often thicker than the others but there
5
Digitized by v^ooQle
are also circles formed by concentric lines of
uniform width; the bodies of the female figurines
on the handles are modelled by hand but the
heads are made in a mould, a variety of Type 7
(op. dt, p. 788), with oval face, curved nose,
thick lips, elliptic eyes and wig-shaped hair; the
anns (in part broken off) were bent upwards
with the hands below the breasts; dressed in a
long tunic, painted red, with black border and
black girdle across waist, shoes painted red with
black top-border; hair black; traces of red paint
on lips and ears, black on eyes. Incisions of
signs indicating marks of capacity: iZZZlllUlll:
The dots indicate the beginning and end of the
marks of capacity and serve to prevent the
additions of further signs (Fig. 1).
BULL STATUETTES
Type 1
No, 2770 {op, dt, p. 774). Horns reconstructed
from a fragment of a similar Statuette with one
hom entirely preserved (Fig. 2 b, right) found
in Square D3; left hind leg added; lower part
of right hind leg reconstructed (Fig. 2 a and
b, left).
Type 4
No, 2034 {op, dt, p. 749). Right hom added and
left hom reconstructed in plaster; traces of
snake curling also from base of right foreleg
up to neck; small part of back reconstructed
in plaster as well as left hind leg and base of
right hind leg (Fig. 3).
No, 2045 {op, dt, p. 150)+Suppl, No, 2809, To
the bulFs head, No. 2045, the body, Suppl. No.
2809, has been added. This Statuette was assigned
to Type 4 in the excavation report owing to the
fact that at the time of the publication of that
report only the head of the Statuette was known
to exist and that is very similar to those of Type
4. The discovery of fragments of the body
joined to the head shows, however, that this
Statuette fonns properly a type of its own, but
Fig. I. White Painted IV-V amphora, No. 2414 (a); one
of the handles (b); indsed signs of capadty (c).
may also bc considered as a variety of Type 4.
The body is short and barrel-shaped without
back-bone; cylindrical legs with somewhat
widening base; forelegs with knees marked by
projections; hind legs with ridges marking their
bony structure; hole on buttock; tail missing,
but must have been freely hanging; short neck
with ridged top and brisket in front; triangulär
head with tubulär mouth; prominent eyes;
pointed pellet ears; curved homs; traces of
black paint on mouth. Tail missing and parts of
ridges on hind legs; left foreleg, parts of body
and left hom restored in plaster. Brown clay;
greenish grey-yellow slip. Length 25.3 cm.;
height 33.0 cm. (Fig. 4).
Type 5
No, 2027 {op. dt, p. 749). Left hom added;
upper part of right hom reconstructed in plas-
ter; tail falling along left hind leg, instead of
right hind leg, as stated erroneously in loc, dt,
(Fig. 5).
Type 7
No, 2349 {op. dt. p. 761). Homs and left foreleg
added; right foreleg reconstructed in plaster
(Fig. 6).
MINOTAUR STATUETTE
No. 1775 {op. dt. p. 740). Tail falling along
right hind leg; female breasts deflected aside
beneath the arms and seen in profile; two holes,
one on ehest and one on buttock (correction of
misprint in loc. dt.)\ traces of genitalia above
front hole, similar to those of No. 2320 {op. dt.
PI. CCXXVn:2); traces of two snakes (not one
as stated in the excavation report) coiling on
the sides of the animafs body to human part
of the body, passing the female breasts behind
to the neck, perhaps lifted by the hands of the
minotaur as on No. 2031+2361 {op. dt, PI.
CCXXVII:!), a minotaur figure that is very simi-
lar to the one here in question; left arm added;
left foreleg added; right hind leg reconstmeted
in plaster; in op. dt. PI. CCXXVII only the
human part of the Statuette reproduced (Fig. 7).
7
Digitized by v^ooQle
Fig. 4. Bull Statuette, No. 2045 ’\-Suppl.No. 2809,
Fig. 3. Bull Statuette, No. 2034.
*ir
1
>
1
Digitized by v^ooQle
Fig, 5. Bull Statuette, No. 2027.
Fig. 6. Bull Statuette, No. 2349.
Fig. 7 . Minotaur Statuette, No. 1775
Fig. 8. Rider Statuette, Suppl.No. 2789.
GooqIc
Digitized by
RIDER
SuppL No. 2789. Fragment of ridcr Statuette;
the horse with flattened cylindrical body; peg-
shaped legs; short, somewhat lifted tail; neck
and head missing; horseman naked; upper part
of body and left leg missing. Red-brown clay
and brown slip. Hand-made. Length of horse
(including tail) 19.0 cm. (Fig. 8).
CHARIOTS
No. 1998 {pp. dt. p. 748). Front-cover and side-
cover of the outer right horse added; left arm of
warrior resting on shoulder of driver (Fig. 9).
No. 249+115 (op. cit. p. 683). Front-covers of
horses added; they are decorated with crescent
omament in relief and fringed border below; the
two figures of which only traces were remained
when op. cit. was published have been largely
recovered: to the right is the driver, with lower
part of arms missing; his head is moulded,
similar to those of the female figurines on the
amphora, No. 2414 (Fig. 1), and of the sphinx,
No. 2331 (Fig. 52), with large leaf-shaped eyes,
full lips, wig-shaped hair-dress, plain beard of
which the point is broken off; to the left is the
warrior; head missing; left arm advanced and
hand resting on left front corner of chariot;
traces of shield remain on front part of chariot;
the right arm of warrior resting on back and
right shoulder of driver; reins of left pair of
horses and beam and yoke of right pair of
horses restored in plaster (Fig. 10).
No. 1123+ 789+1864+1971 (op. cit. p. 711).
Behind the archer, something has been broken
off on the chariot, probably remains of a quiver
with arrows similar to those of No. 2000; body
of chariot with somewhat concave flanks and
front (Fig. 11).
No. 1168 (op. cit. p. 714). The fragments of the
chariot have been joined as far as possiblc
10
Digitized by v^ooQle
Fig. 10. Chariot, No. 249+115.
showing the body of the chariot with concave rear; dome-shaped part excised in front and
front, slightly curved flanks and open rear; flanks; longitudinal partition wall in the chariot
plain wheels with projecting hubs; no remains with an erect Support ending in a loop at the
of driver and warrior; four horses with short, rear; plain wheels, of which only fragment of
Ihin bodies; peg-shaped legs; roughly shaped, one wheel remains, attached to the flanks of the
plain front-covers; flattened necks; ”bird’s” chariot. Fragments of two figurines, one in each
heads with bulging eyes; pellet ears. Beams, compartment: to the left a figurine with the left
yokes, reins and parts of horses’ bodies missing, arm advanced; most of right arm missing; face
in part restored in plaster as also small missing damaged; pointed beard and pellet ears; to the
parts of chariot. Red-brown clay; brown slip. right only cylindrical torso of figurine preserved
Hand-made. Length 21.0 cm. (Fig. 12). and small part of left arm. No remains of
Suppl. No. 2790. Fragments of a chariot with horses. Brown clay and slip. Hand-made.
concave front, slightly curved flanks, and open Length 19.0 cm. (Fig. 13).
11
Digitized by v^ooQle
12
Digitized by v^ooQle
No, 2388 {op. cit, p. 162)+SuppL No. 2791. No.
2388 includes only the charioteer; the resl
(Suppl. No. 2791) is composed of fragments.
The chariot is oval in shape, open in the rear;
it rested by means of two cylindrical, low
Supports on the disc, which is now missing;
the chariot has a longitudinal partition wall
I cnding in the rear with a loop-shaped, erect
Support; no wheels, only an axis projecting
from the flanks of the chariot; finger-prints are
prescrved on the ends of the axes and also in
part on the light sUp showing that there had
been no wheels broken off from the axes; either
the wheels were indicated by paint on the flanks
of the chariot (there are faint traces of black
paint on the right flank) or were not indicated
at all, the axis serving as pars pro toto; in the
left compartment the charioteer, No. 2388; four
horses with short bodies; peg-shaped legs;
wedge-shaped necks with flat front; narrow,
long heads; incised mouth and nostrils; pellet
ears; plain head-cover; nose-band; cheek-bands;
front-covers with crescent-shaped omament in
relief; outer horse also with similar side-covers;
tails attached to left legs; yokes across the necks
and two beams from yokes to chariot; pieces
missing and in part restored in plaster. Brown
clay; light-coloured slip, mostly effaced. Hand-
made. Length 24.5 cm. (Fig. 14).
No. 804+944+1338 {pp. cit. pp. 696, 702, 720).
No. 804 refers to the warrior, No. 944 to the
outer left horses and No. 1338 was described as
fragments of a chariot. This is rectangular in
shape and rests directly on the base plate;
longitudinal partition wall with remains of
Support in the rear; plain wheels (only one
preserved) with projecting hubs and attached to
the flanks of the chariot; in the right compart-
ment Stands the driver with advanced arms;
trunk-shaped body; pellet ears; pinched nose;
pointed cap; in the left compartment is the
warrior of similar type; arms missing; helmet
with cheek-pieces; four horses with flattened
bodies; peg-shaped legs; bodies united with
15. Chariot, No. 804 + 944 ■¥ 1338.
13
Digitized by v^ooQle
Fig. 16. Group of ring dancers and
musician, No. 1693 +2083.
joined pieces of clay; cylindrical, flattened necks;
plain front-cover; narrow, bird-Uke heads; eyes
indicated by plain elevations; Winkers; neck-
covers with plumes broken off; head- and neck-
cover; neck-band with plain tassel in front; freely
hanging tails, broken off; yokes, beams and
reins missing as well as pieces of horses, in part
restored in plaster. Red-brown clay; light-
coloured slip, in part effaced. Hand-made.
Length 24.0 cm. (Fig. 15).
Suppl, No, 2792, Chariot, fragmentary; only
base-plate and horses (part missing) preserved;
the horses are of the type represented in the
preceding group. Similar clay and slip. Height
15.8 cm., length 26.5 cm.
No, 1687 {pp, dt, p. 735). When described in
loc, dt, only part of the body was preserved and
erroneously identified with that of a bull Sta-
tuette. The neck and head have now been joined
to the body making the bull into a horse. This
has formed part of a four in hand drawing a
chariot. The body of the horse is cylindrical,
short, peg-shaped legs; wedge-shaped neck with
flattened front; narrow head with prominent
eyes; head-cover; tail (restored partly in plaster)
14
attached to right hind leg; nose missing as well
as left foreleg, both restored in plaster. Brown
clay and slip. Hand-made. Length 15.5 cm.
Suppl, No, 2793, Similar horse with nose pre-
served, showing incised mouth and nostrils; left
hind leg and lower part of right fore leg restored
in plaster. Clay and slip as preceding. Hand-
made. Length 15.4 cm.
RING DANCERS
No. 1693+2083 (op, dt, p. 735). Only three
figurines had been identified when the descrip-
tion was made in loc, dt, The group consists
now of five figurines, two female and two male
dancers Standing opposite each other along the
periphery of the disc plate; in the middle is a
male musician wearing a strap around his left
Shoulder; this strap probably served to suspend
a String instrument. The figurines are all made
in the ”snow-man” technique, with trunk-
shaped bodies; pellet female breasts; pellet ears
and noses; the female dancers have long, plain
hair falling behind; all the figurines have bands
wound round the head; the dancers have their
arms outstretched (parts missing). Red-brown
Digitized by v^ooQle
day and slip. Hand-made. Disc diam. 16.0 cm.;
height of figurines 8.5— 9.5 cm. (Fig. 16).
SCULPTURES OF THE FIRST PROTO-
CYPRIOTE STYLE
.Vo. 1726 (pp. dt. p. 737). The head is somewhat
similar to No. 1 as stated in loc. cit. but shows
several distinct fcatures of its own. The eyes are
ev'enly elliptical; the nose has been added and
is rather thin and protniding as the lips; chin
with rounded beard and moustache painted in
black as iris of eyes and eye-brows; hair behind
indicated as elevated surface, probabiy also
painted black but all traces of paint are effaced;
face and neck painted red; head and helmet made
in one piece; helmet without cheek-pieces, with
straight top, broken off; plain ears, in the left
one fragment of pierced bronze ring, the right
one with earring of terracotta of which also
only a fragment is preserved. Brown clay; traces
of wheel inside, but the facial features modelled
by hand. (For the probable connexion of this
head with the torso No. 1843, cf. pp. 35 f.). Height
18.5 cm. (Fig. 17).
Suppl. No. 2794. Fragment of head of statue,
with the face fairly well preserved. The face
is quite similar to those of Nos. 1 + 1618+
1619 and 1728+1740. Only small fragments of
eyelids preserved but traces of them are visible
all round the eye-balls; double-spiral incised
below mouth; ear-rings of terracotta in the
fairly carefully modelled ears; pointed beard,
with converging, longitudinal grooves; end of
beard missing; fragments of conical helmet;
traces of black paint on beard. Red-brown clay;
l»^own slip. Traces of wheel inside, but facial
features made by hand. Height 20.2 cm. (Fig. 18).
Suppl. No. 2795. Statuette composed of six
fragments with joints at neck, waist, lower right
arm, beneath hips and at ankles; Standing on
rectangular plaque with the left leg somewhat
advanced; feet wearing shoes; tubulär legs with
tibia and knees indicated; narrow waist; some-
wfaat bulging ehest; broad shoulders; arms
vertical, stuck to body; plain hands; narrow.
trapezoid face; plain, pointed beard; incised
mouth; almost straight nose; prominent cheeks;
long, lancet-shaped eye-balls and ridged brows;
peUet ears; conical helmet with top falling along
the back of head and neck; dressed in a jerkin,
probabiy of leather, with short sleeves and a
tunic with overlapping flaps, held by a plain
band in relief around the waist indicating a
girdle. Red-brown clay and slip. Hand-made.
Height 34.5 cm. (Fig. 19).
No. 1071 (op. cit. p. 708). Upper part of right
arm and adjoining part of body added; lower
part of body added and in part restored in
plaster (Fig. 20).
No. 1843 (op. cit. p. 743). Added vertical arms
with slightly curved fingers and advanced thumb;
erect collar ending the leather jerkin in front
and at the back of neck; the head (cf. below)
was attached separately. The jerkin was provided
with side-flaps; no girdle indicated plastically but
probabiy in paint now effaced; beneath this
supposed girdle vertical folds grooved. Back-
hole. Red-brown clay; jerkin covered with a
light slip; arms and hands painted in red; part
of fingers and thumb of right hand missing as
well as part of fingers of left hand. Hand-made;
upper part of body and neck-collar built up of
superimposed Strips. Height 42.0 cm. (Fig. 21;
Fig. 22 shows the statue with the head, No. 1726,
probabiy belonging to it; cf. pp. 35 f.).
SCULPTURES OF THE SECOND PROTO-
CYPRIOTE STYLE
No. 1748+2053 (op. cit. pp. 739, 751). The head,
No. 2053, has been joined to the torso, No. 1748.
Added lower part of left arm. Red-brown clay;
brown slip. Lower part of body wheel-made;
upper part hand-made; head attached separately.
Traces of black paint on hair and red on face.
Height 35,0 cm. (Fig. 23).
No. 1098 (op. cit. p. 710)+Suppl. No. 2796.
Body with two holes, one on each side near the
base; lower part of body wheel-made; upper
part hand-made, in the Strip technique. Added
part of head (Suppl. No. 2796), in part restored
15
Digitized by v^ooQle
Figs. 17—22. Sculptures of the First Proto-
Cypriote Style.
Fig. 18. Head, Suppl.No. 2794, front view (a) and pro-
fite(b).
Fig. 17. Head. No. 1726.
Digitized by
Fig. 19. Statuette, Suppl.No. 2795.
Fig. 20. Statuette, No. 1071.
Fig. 21. Torso of statue, No. 1843.
Fig. 22. Torso of statue, No. 1843, with the head,
No. 1726, added.
Digitized by
Fig. 24. Statuette, No. 1098+Suppl.No. 2796, front
view (a) and profile (b).
Fig. 23. Statuette, No. 1748+2053.
Fig. 25. Head, Suppl.No. 2797.
Digitized by
Google
Figs. 23— 27. Sculptures of the Second Proto
Cypriote Style.
Fig. 27. Head, Suppl.No. 2798.
Fig. 26. Statuette, No. 1276.
Digitized by
Fig. 28. Statuette, No. 1049-{- 1054 + I325+Suppl.No.
2799.
20
in piaster, made in the same mould as the head
of Nos. 936, 1724 and 1725 {pp. dt. PI. CCIX
1 - 4, 6); pendants in the ears. Right eye, righ
and central parts of forehead and top of hea<
missing. Black paint on hair, ears, and pendants
Red-brown clay; buff grey-yellow slip. Heigh
48.0 cm. (Fig. 24).
Suppl. No. 2797. Head of Statuette as that o
No. 1 141 {op. dt. PI. CCXII: 3, 6, 7); around th.
neck a string with a pendant indicating a woman
beneath the pendant horizontally grooved fold
of the dress; small part of hair with vertica
narrow incisions visible beneath flat band ar
ound the head; traces of black paint on the haii
and the eye-brows. Red-brown, hard clay an<
light slip. Moulded. Height 15.0 cm. (Fig. 25)
No. 1276 (op. dt. p. 717). Added end of bearc
with traces of the periphery of a round shield
there are also traces of the shieid on the right
upper arm; from these traces the diameter ol
the shield can be estimated at c. 8.0 cm.; the
left hand of the figure has apparently seized the
handle of the shield; the right hand has prob-
ably had a spear of which there are traces in
front beneath the strap in which the sword is
hanging below the left arm. For the hole cut on
top of the head mentioned in the excavation
report, cf. p. 37. Red-brown clay and slip.
Lower part of body wheei-made; ehest hand-
made; face moulded. Height 35.5 cm. (Fig. 26).
Suppl. No. 2798. Head of life-size Statue; face
of trapezoidal shape with long beard tapering
towards the straight-cut end, its hair indicated
by small, dose incisions, and continuing along
the cheeks; protruding lips damaged; nose with
somewhat uptumed tip; bow-shaped, large eyes;
eye-brows with narrow, vertical incisions; small
part of hair with narrow, vertical indsions visible
beneath remains of helmet or cap; roughly mo-
delled ears with double earrings; parts missing.
restored in plaster. Hand-made. Brown, sifted
clay. Traces of black paint on face; red slip
on face and helmet. Height 22.0 cm. (Fig. 27).
Figs. 28—29. Sculptures of Neo-Cypriote Style.
Digitized by v^ooQle
Fig. 29, Fragment of head, No, 915,
SCULPTURES OF NEO-CYPRIOTE STYLE
No, 1049+1054+1325 (op. cit, pp. 706 f., 719)
^Suppl. No, 2799, To thc upper part of the
body, No. 1049, the lower part of the legs,
No. 1054, the left arm, No. 1325, and the upper
part of legs and the body below the waist,
Suppl. No. 2799, have been added. The lower
part of the legs join to their upper part and the
body below the waist; that this part of the body
belongs to the upper part is proved by the fact
that the dimensions fit exactiy and the clay is
identical; that the left arm belongs to the
Statuette is indicated by the fact that the arm is
marked by a roughly circular groove made when
the clay was wet and that the same sign is found
on the left side-flap, these signs evidently made
by the artist in Order to facilitate the association
of the arm with the Statuette after the firing, if
that took place on different occasions or in
different kilns which seems to have been the
case to judge by the fact that the clay of the arm
is more light-coloured than the rest of the Statue;
this difference in colour was counterbalanced
with a reddish paint added to the surface of
the exterior part of the arm while the interior
part, being dose by the body and not well
visible, was left unpainted; of the same reddish
paint there are traces on the rest of the Statuette
(cf. below). The upper part of body and lower
parts of legs as described, loc, cit,; the left
hand is adomed with a circular armlet and holds
a circular object; the modelling of the lower
apophysis of the cubit-bone is similar to that
of the right arm and also the partition of the
fingers by grooved lines and the careful modell-
ing of the nail of the thumb are features charac-
teristic of both arms forming additional evi-
dence of their association. The part of the
Chiton on the lower part of the body is provided
with side-flaps and a plain girdle at the waist;
below that are grooved pendent folds; the chiton
ends with a central flap between the thighs,
proved by a border marked by a grooved line
and continuing at the sides by vertical grooves
to the side-flaps; the lower border of the left
sleeve of the chiton is marked by clear traces
and has been restored in piaster corresponding
to the preserved border of the right arm; there
are faint traces of black colour on the hair and
on the brows and of a reddish colour both on
the chiton where it may have formed a pattem
and on the naked parts of the body, e. g. on the
feet and on the ears. Height 98.0 cm. (Fig. 28).
No, 915 (op, cit, p. 701). Not illustrated in
op, cit, (Fig. 29).
SCULPTURES OF CYPRO-GREEK STYLE
No, 2502 (op, cit, p. 767). The parts described as
missing in loc, cit, have been restored in piaster.
The following details may be added to the
description given in loc, cit, The chin is pointed;
lips protruding and a concave modelling around
the mouth emphasizes these features; traces of
red upper border of the chiton in front and also
of band decorated with ladder-pattem along
21
Digitized by v^ooQle
Fig. 36 a. Head, No. 2469.
Fig. 34. Statuette, No. 2497 + 2477 2478, profilc (a)
and front view (b).
Figs. 30 — 38. Sculptures of Cypro-Greek Style
Fig. 35 a. Statuette, No. 2467 +Suppl.No. 2802
Fig. 30 b. Profile of head,
No. 2502.
Fig. 36 b. Profile of
head, No. 2469.
Fig. 32 b. Profile of Fig. 35 b. Profile of
head, No. 2456. head, No. 2467.
Digitized by CjOOQIc
Fig, 37. Statuette t No. 2434"^Suppl.No. 2803, front
view (a), profile (b).
Fig. 38. Statuette, No. 2446+2448.
left side of body; ears and naked parts of arms
with traces of red colour; traces of black colour
on the hair which falls in a compact mass on
thc back of head, with slightly concavc sides.
Lower part of body wheel-made; upper part
hand-made; head with traces of wheel inside,
but facial features hand-made (Fig. 30).
No. 2169+1603+2475 (op. cit. pp. 733, 755, 766).
Added to the head, No. 2169, a fragment of the
body, with the left arm, No. 1603, and the right
arm with part of the body, No. 2475. The body
is restored in plaster below. Lower part of body
tubulär, wheel-made; upper part is flattened with
broad, sloping shoulders and built up by Strips;
arms vertical with closed hand; of fingers only
thumb modelled; part of right thumb and of
left hand missing. Brown clay; light-brown slip.
Lower part of body wheel-made; upper part
24
built up of superimposed Strips as also the head.
Height 49.0 cm. (Fig. 31)
No. 2456 (op. cit. p. 765)+5i^p/. No. 2800. To
the Statuette as described in loc. cit.j the right
arm and lower part of left arm have been added
as well as small parts of the body, Suppl. No.
2800; parts of the body below restored in plaster;
dressed in a chiton with short sleeves indicated
by shallow, grooved line on upper part of arms;
below that the muscles of the arm roughly in-
dicated by a concavity. Brown clay; buff-grey
slip. Lower part of body wheel-made; upper
part built up of superimposed Strips as also the
head. Height 53.0 cm., part added in plaster not
included (Fig. 32).
No. 2462 (op. cit. p. 76S)+Suppl. No. 2801. To
the head, No 2462, described in loc. cit. the rest
of the Statuette has been added from fragments,
Digitized by v^ooQle
Suppl. No. 2801. Figure Standing on a base
tablet with almost isolinear feet, but left foot
slightly advanced; feet with pointed shoes;
ankles well indicated; lower part of body tubu-
lär, wheel-made; upper part is built up by
Strips; female breasts and pellet nipples indicated;
broad, sloping shoulders; vertical arms with
closed hand; of the fingers only thumb modelled
and nail indicated; dress with short sleeves
indicated by ridges across upper arms; in front
the dress ends somewhat above the instep; at the
back it falls with side-flaps widening towards the
ground and ending only a little above it; chin
with an impressed dimple; traces of black lines
indicating eyelids. Lower part of right arm and
part of hand of left arm missing; parts of body
restored in plaster. Brown clay; buff grey and
grey-brown slip. Lower part of body wheel-made;
upper part hand-made, built up of strips as also
the head. Height 71.5 cm. (Fig. 33).
No. 2497+2477+2478 (op. dt. p. 766). The
arms, Nos. 2477 and 2478, have been added to
the bust, No 2497. Two fingers of the right hand
and part of all the fingers of the left hand are
missing; lower part of body restored in plaster.
Traces of red paint on arms. Baking holes in
arms, back of body and back of head. Lower
part of body probably tubulär and wheel-made;
upper part hand-made, built up of strips; head
added separately and inside with traces of wheel,
but features of face modelled by hand; helmet,
with remains of ridged crest, added separately.
Red-brown clay; buff-white slip; red paint on
face. Height 51.0 cm. (Fig. 34).
No. 2467 {op. dt. p. 165)+Suppl. No. 2802. Two
pieces of the right part of the bust have been
added (Suppl. No. 2802). The preserved part of
the bust and the head hand-made, in the Strip
technique. Dress painted with a reddish colour
on which converging black lines and deep-red
bands. Brown clay. Height 26.0 cm. (Fig. 35).
No. 2469 (op. dt. p. 766). Head of Statuette. Four
small pieces have been added to the part de-
scribcd in loc. dt.: face of trapezoidal shape
with pointed chin; protruding, smiling lips;
concave part around mouth; prominent, straight
and thin nose; bulging, almond-shaped eye-
balls; ridged brows; roughly shaped, plain ears
with double earrings; helmet or cap; neck bclow
and right part of cap and small part at right
temple restored in plaster. Brown clay; light buff-
grey slip. Lower part wheel-made; upper part
hand-made; features of face modelled by hand.
Height 18.0 cm. (Fig. 36).
No. 2434 {op. dt. p. lfA)+Suppl. No. 2803.
Fragments of the head, Suppl. No. 2803, have
been added to the body, No. 2434. Lower part
of body tubulär, wheel-made; upper part flattened
and hand-made; broad, sloping shoulders; verti-
cal arms; hands closed with modelled fingers and
straight thumb; long, tapering neck; almost tri-
angulär face; pointed chin; smiling, full lips;
concave part around mouth; curved, thin nose;
prominent, almond-shaped eyes; roughly shaped
ears with double earrings; helmet or cap; hair
falling at back of head and neck in a compact
mass. Red-brown clay; light slip. Traces of wheel
inside, but features of face hand-made. Height
67.5 cm. (Fig. 37).
No. 2446+2448 {op. dt. p. 765). Missing parts
restored in plaster. This figure is a repräsentative
of the Cypro-Greek style in the idol Version,
corresponding to the large idols related to
Proto-Cypriote and Neo-Cypriote styles (cf. p.
37). Brown clay; light yellow slip. Hand-made
(Fig. 38).
SMALL HUMAN IDOLS
Type 1
Suppl. No. 2804. Female idol; cylindrical body
splaying towards the plain base; breasts indicated
by conical projections; arms uplifted; face
roughly triangulär with rounded chin; incised
mouth; thick nose; circular pellet eyes; thick
brows; flat, rectangular hair-dress, covered with
black paint in front, hair indicated by vertical
black lines behind; encircling black lines on
body. Part of nose, of left arm and of body
missing. Light-brown clay. Body wheel-made.
Height 10.5 cm. (Fig. 39).
25
Digitized by v^ooQle
Figs. 39—41. Small Human Idols.
Fig. 39. Female idol, No. 2804, front (a) and back-
side (b).
Fig. 41. Statuette, No. 1421, profile (a), front view (b).
Digitized by
Type 3
Siq>pL No. 2805. Statuette with tubulär body;
splayed base; arms once attached on shoulder
but now missing; head of triangulär shape;
roughly shaped nose; large pellet eyes; heavy
brows; narrow, tall helmet, similar to Nos. 1503,
1994, 2363. Red-brown clay and slip. Wheel-
made. Height 29.3 cm. (Fig. 40).
Type 7
No. 1421 {pp. dt. p. 733). In the second diagram,
op. cit. foUowing p. 812, this Statuette has been
crroneously classified as ”Large human idol”.
It belongs instead to the category of ”Small
human idols”, Type 7 {op. dt. p. 788), i.e. idols
with moulded heads, similar to those of the
statuettes illustrated in op. dt. PI. CCXXXII:
6-8. Red-brown clay and light yellow slip.
Body wheel-made; face moulded (Fig. 41).
LARGE HUMAN IDOLS
Type 1
No. 2316 {op. dt. p. 759). Added: upper part of
both arms (Fig. 42).
No. 2372 {op. dt. p. 762). Added: lower part of
left arm; base restored in plaster (Fig. 43).
Type 2—3
No. 3+1773 {op. dt. pp. 675, 740). Head, No. 3,
added to body No. 1773. Lower part of body
wheel-made, upper part hand-made. Brown clay;
buff, light-brown slip. Height 62.5 cm. (Fig. 44).
Type 3
No. 1017 (op. cit. p. 704)+5i(Rp/. No.2806.TYic
Upper part of body, arms, and head, Suppl. No.
2806, have been added to the lower part of body,
No. 1017. Lower part of body wheel-made,
upper part hand-made; head wheel-made but
features of face modelled by hand. Body elliptical
in section; flattened ehest; sloping shoulders;
vertical arms with closed hand; modelled fingers,
straight thumb; long cylindrical neck; head trape-
zoidal; pointed beard; incised mouth; thin nose;
slightly elevated eye-balls; ridged brows; roughly
shaped ears with earrings; hair in compact mass
falling at the back of neck; conical helmet of
which upper part missing. Back-hole. Dark-grey
to brown clay; greenish-yellow to buff grey slip.
Height 67.0 cm. (Fig. 45).
No. 1065 {op. dt. p. 708). Added: right arm
(Fig. 46).
No. 1143 {op. dt. pp. 712 f.). Added: left arm
(Fig. 47).
No. 1643 {op. dt. p. 734). Added: lower part of
left arm; part of both hands missing (Fig. 48).
No. 1980 {op. dt. p. 747). Not illustrated in
op. dt. (Fig. 49).
Type 4
No. 1021 {op. dt. pp. 704 f.). Not illustrated in
op. dt. (Fig. 50).
No. 909 {op. dt. p. 700). Not illustrated in
op. dt. (Fig. 51).
VARIOUS
Lateral part of throne
No. 2331 {op. dt. p. 760). Top of Banking side
of throne reconstructed in plaster; not illustrated
in op. dt. (Fig. 52).
Flower
Suppl. No. 2807. Four peripherical leaves and
one central leaf, probably offered by votaries.
Two specimens. Length 7.3 and 7.8 cm. Found
in D 4 (Fig. 53).
Thunderbolt
Suppl. No. 2808. Spirally wound thunderbolts,
four complete specimens and two fragments,
one with preserved alternately red and black
painted bands. One thunderbolt with bent shaft-
hole and incised lines between ridges of the
spiral windings and on the part of the thunder-
bolt between the windings and the shaft-hole.
Found in K-L 11. Length 16.0—19.3 cm.
(Fig. 54).
Detail
Detail of ear of No. 1356 {op. dt. p. 720), show-
ing ear pierced by four holes (Fig. 55).
Vase
Suppl. No. 2810. Vase in the shape of an astra-
galos; neck broken off; fragment of handle from
body to neck. Found in E 9. Brown clay; buff-
yellow slip. Length 8.5 cm. (Fig. 56).
27
Digitized by v^ooQle
Figs. 42—51. Large Hurrtan Idols.
Fig, 42, Bisexual idoL
No. 2316.
Fig. 45. Statuette, No.
(a), front view (b).
28
Fig. 44. Statuette, No.3+1773, profile (a), front
view (b).
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by v^ooQle
Remarks and conclusioiis
The amphora, No. 2414, was in the excavation
report (pp. dt. p. 763) classified as White
Painted IV— V. Such a Classification is still
warranted. Contact with Type IV is shown by
the fairly similar shape of the Bichrome Red I
(IV) amphora, op. dt. IV:2, Fig. XLII:7, but
the amphora No. 2414 has a drooping rim and
an angular biconical body, characteristic fea-
tures of Type V, whereas the rim of the Bi-
chrome Red I (IV) is flat and its body rounded
biconical. The parts added to the body of the
amphora No. 2414, as a result of the mending
Work, have increased the stylistic tendencies of
Type V by the fact that the shape of the body
can be proved to be angular-biconical. A date
of about the middle of the 6th Century B.C. is
indicated on ceramic evidence and this is con-
firmed by the style of the female figurines
attached to the handles. Their moulded heads
indicate the initial phase of the Neo-Cypriote
style. We know that the stylistic features of the
Proto-Cypriote faces were transformed and
modified in the Neo-Cypriote style, which tends
towards a canonic form, with less individual
variations than before; the modelling is smooth
and shallow, no details are accentuated, and
the different parts of the face merge softly into
one another. The transition between the last
phase of the Second Proto-Cypriote and the
initial phase of the Neo-Cypriote style is gradual
and these phases of the two styles are in fact
Contemporary as shown by the find-contexts’.
On the other hand the difference between the
latest specimens of the Second Proto-Cypriote
style and the earliest representatives of the Neo-
Cypriote style is equally clear; it is instructive
to compare the faces of the Neo-Cypriote
figurines here in question with those of the
Second Proto-Cypriote style illustrated in op.
’ Op. dt. pp. 208 f.: the Second Proto-Cypriote style
lasted from c. 600 to 540 B.C. and the Neo-Cypriote style
from c. 560 to 520 B.C.
32
dt. II, PI. CCIX: the softly modelled faces of the
Neo-Cypriote figurines, with the flabby cheeks,
fleshy, round chin, full lips and narrow, leaf-
shaped eyes contrast with the firmer structure of
the Second Proto-Cypriote faces, with their
wide, leaf-shaped or semi-lunar eyes and thia,
straight lips.
As mentioned above (p. 4), the initial date
of the Neo-Cypriote style is c. 560 B.C. and the
chronological evidence given by the style of the
amphora, c. 550 B. C., is thus confirmed by its
sculptural adomment.
The capacity of the amphora can be calculated
to have been between c. 38 and 41 1., the neck
not included. The incised signs indicate the
capacity of the contents, not the amphora itself,
as there is nothing to show that this amphora
served as a Standard measure. What we know
about the System of capacity of ancient Cyprus
is very little and refers to late antiquity*. No
doubt the Cypriote System of capacity formed
part of those of Egypt and the Near East during
the Archaic period when the Cypriote cultural
relations were intimate with these regions of the
Mediterranean*. The basic unit has therefore
most probably been equivalent to the Egyptian
Hin, the Phoenician-Hebrew Log, the Babylo-
nian Ka, and to the Creek xestes (dikotylon).
derived from this Oriental system of capacity^*,
and if we identify this basic unit with that
indicated by each single stroke, the higher unit
of measure indicated by the Z-shaped sign must
have been the Cypriote measure of capacity
equivalent to the Creek hemiamphorion, be-
cause the measure equivalent to a metretes
would have resulted in a capacity very much
exceeding that of the amphora, and a unit minor
to that of a hemiamphorion would result in a
capacity much too small for that of the amphora:
•
® A survey of the litcrary evidence is given by Sakjel-
LARios, Ta KoKpiaxct I, pp. 634 ff.
• Swed. Cyp. Exp. IV:2, pp. 226 ff.
ViEDEBANTT, Forschungen zur Metrol. d. Ahert
(Abh. phil.-hist. Kl. Königl. Sächs. Ges. Wiss. XXXIV.
No. III. 1917), pp. 49. 60. 129, 131, 159 f.
Digitized by v^ooQle
it would be natural if the total measure indicated
would have been somewhat, but not much,
smaller than the capacity of the amphora.
8 units equivalent to the xestes and 3 units
equivalent to the hemiamphorion would yield a
total amount of between 36 and 37 1., a total
amount, which considering the approximate
exactitude of the measures used and local
differences prevailing, agrees well with both the
capacity of the amphora and the probable
System of capacity used in Cyprus during the
Archaic period.
Tuming now to the scolptures we may first
emphasize the fact that several sculptures have
had their artistic value considerably increased
by the restoration work. A bull Statuette without
legs and homs is a miserable sight; from an
aesthetic point of view the look of the Late
Cypriote m bull Statuette, Fig. 2, has improved
very much by the restoration of its homs and
legs and the same holds good for the Cypro-
Geometric (Figs. 3, 4) and Cypro- Archaic (Fig. 6)
statnettes. If the reader is interested in the matter,
she or he may compare Figs. 2—4, 6 with op. cit,
Pis. CCXXIV:!, 2; CCXXV:1, 3, 6 to see the
difference between the present and earlier
appearance of these bull statuettes.
The bull Statuette, Fig. 5, represents a new
type or rather a variety of Type 4 (p. 7): the
head is similar to those of Type 4, of Cypro-
Geomctric I— II, but the body put together from
sherds is barrel-shaped, similar to that of No.
2315 (pp. cit. PL CCXXV:5) dating from Cypro-
Archaic period. The bull Statuette, Fig. 5, thus
forms an intermediate specimen between the
Cypro-Geometric I— II and the Cypro- Archaic I
bull statuettes and would therefore probably
date from Cypro-Geometric III. Such a date
cannot be proved, nor is it contradicted by the
find-contexts; the head and fragments of the
body were all found in the lower foundation
deposit around the altar erected at the beginning
of the local Period 3, i. e. about the middle of
Cypro-Geometric III; when this new altar was
erected, ex votos originally placed around the
earlier altar, which was in use from the be-
ginning of Cypro-Geometric I to the middle of
Cypro-Geometric III, were deposited around the
new altar. The bull Statuette in question forming
part of the ex votos removed from the earlier
to the new altar and being typologically more
advanced than the Cypro-Geometric I— II
statuettes would thus probably date from the
early half of Cypro-Geometric III.
The minotaur Statuette, Fig. 7, has been re-
published on account of the fact that its de-
scription in the excavation report needs some
correction in details and also because the animal
part of the figure is not illustrated in that report
(op. CiL PI. CCXXVII:6), although it is de-
scribed in the Object Register of the report (op.
cit. p. 740, No. 1775). Why only the human part
of this minotaur was illustrated in the excavation
report 1 am unable to explain and it is of very
little interest, if any at all. Of greater interest is
another fact, viz. that this minotaur Statuette is
similar to that of No. 2031+2361 (op. cit. PI.
CCXXVIIrl): the same shape of the head, the
cylindrical human body with sharply marked
top, the female breasts in profile beneath the
arms. For typological reasons one would not
date these two statuettes very far from each
other. In view of that, it is interesting to examine
their find-contexts: the Statuette No. 1775 was
found on the floor of the local Period 4, laid at
about the middle of Cypro-Archaic I (p. 4, n. 6)
and of the stauette No. 2031+2361, No. 2031 was
found in the lower foundation deposit of the
new altar (cf. p. 3) and No. 2361 in the waste
deposit in Square K 6 on the floor of the local
Period 4. An explanation of the seemingly con-
flicting find-contexts of the latter Statuette has
been given in the excavation report (op. cit. pp.
807 f.). Notwithstanding whether that explana-
tion is accepted or not we must accept the find-
context of No. 2031 as indicating the date of the
Statuette which thus cannot be later than the
end of the local Period 2, i. e. about the middle
of Cypro-Geometric III or c. 775 B.C. As regards
the date of No. 1775 the fact that it was found
33
Digitized by v^ooQle
on the floor of the local Period 4 may be con-
sidered to indicate that it is assignable to the
time when that floor was in use, i. e. from the
middle of Cypro-Archaic I to the early phase of
Cypro-Archaic II, or in absolute figures c.
650— 560 B.C. (p. 4, n. 6), but there is evidence
that several ex votos which originally had been
placed on the floor of the local Period 3 were
removed to the floor of the local Period 4 when
the sanctuary of that period was constructed (op*
cit. pp. 804 ff.). The local Period 3 dates from
the middle of Cypro-Geometric III to the
middle of Cypro-Archaic I, i.e. it covers the
time between c. 775 and 650 B.C. (pp. 3, 4, n. 6»
33). Thus it may happen that some objects found
on the floor of the local Period 4 are as early as
c. 775 B.C. and that may therefore be the date of
No. 1775, which would bring it chronologically
near the Statuette No. 2031+2361. As empha-
sized already in the excavation report {op. cit.
pp. 804 ff.), ”stratigraphy, like all methods, is
one which must be used with discretion”. The
stratigraphical method can be misused if applied
mechanically. The actual case illustrates that
fact and shows that the typological and stylistic
criteria should not be overlooked.
No complete group of dancers was represented
among those available at the time when the
excavation report was published. The three
groups so far discovered at Ajia Irini are all of
different composition; one, No. 123 (op. cit. PI.
CCXXIII:6), consists of three ring dancers and
one central iigurine, probably the musician; the
figurines, as far as preserved (the central figurine,
one of the dancers and part of a second dancer)
are female; the second group, No. 1169 {op. cit.
p. 714), consists of two pair-dancers (not ring
dancers as stated in loc. cit.); of three figurines
the heads and parts of some of their arms are
missing and the whole upper part of one of the
fourth figurine is missing; the pairs are Standing
facing each other; on the two figurines of the
one side so much of the beard is preserved that
they can be identified as male; probably the
opposite pair was female, although indisputable
34
female indications are missing; one figurine has
however, the neck preserved up to the chii
without any trace of beard. The third group
here illustrated in its restored condition, Fig. 1(
(No. 1693+2083), consists of four ring dancers
two female and two male, the dancers of diifereni
sex facing each other, and a fifth figurine, the
musician, in the centre. The three groups ol
dancers thus represent female ring dancers.
ring dancers of both sexes, and pair dancers.
The groups of ring dancers are attached to a
circular base, those of the pair dancers to a
roughly trapezoidal base. The groups of ring
dancers are provided with a central figurine
acting as a musician'^
Statuettes of riders are not particularly com-
mon among the finds from Ajia Irini. So far
only three specimens are known and they are
all of a small size (Nos. 921, 922, 1366; op. cit.
pp. 701, 721; PI. CCXXIV:!). The fragmentary
Statuette here illustrated, Fig. 8, is interesting
as the only specimen of a rider of a larger size
and of a more elaborate, though still conven-
tionalized modelling, of the same type as repre-
sented at Idalion (op. cit. PI. CLXXXIIilO) and
elsewhere.
Some of the chariols have been restored in
details (Figs. 9—11), others have been put to-
gether from various fragments (Figs. 12—15).
Artistically they ränge from fairly well modelled
specimens with details of wheels, horse-trappings
etc. minutely indicated and the heads of the
charioteer and warrior made in moulds of the
Second Proto-Cypriote style (Figs. 9, 10), via
specimens with particulars less carefullyexecuted
and with the human figiuines made in the
”snow-man” technique (Figs. 11 — 13) to fairly
roughly and sununarily shaped specimens (Figs.
14, 15); in Figs. 11 — 13 the wheels are plain, the
horses and horse-trappings are modelled in
Similar groups of ring dancers are Ulustrated in Ohne-
FALSCH-RiCHTER, K.B.H. PI. CXXVII:5 (three female ring
dancers and a female flute player), 6 (ring dancers of both
sexes and tambourine players). Pzir dancers seem to be
less commonly represented in sculpture. I do not remem-
ber of any other specimen than that mentioned here.
Digitized by v^ooQle
a diagrammatic manner and in Fig. 14 there are
no wheels at all but only an axis projecting from
the flanks of the chariot; in Fig. 15, finally, the
chariot rests directly on the ground and huge
plain wheels were attached to the flanks of the
chariot, the top of which was below the hubs
of the wheels, which are therefore without
functional connection with the chariot.
Of particular technical interest is the evidence
givcn by some of these statuettes for the con-
stniction of the coach-body of the chariot. The
oval, rounded shape of Fig. 14, the somewhat
concave front and flanks of Fig. 11, the concave
front and slightly curved flanks of Figs. 12 and
13, the latter coach-body with dome-shaped
excisions both in the front and the flanks, all
these characteristics seem to indicate a con-
stniction of bendable wood and plaited work for
the coach-bodies mentioned and that connects
them technically with the Homeric xafjmvXov
or kyxvXov Another type represented
among the chariots found at Ajia Irini is that
with straight front and flanks. That such a type
seems to be represented in Fig. 15 is not con-
clusive owing to the rough and summary
modelling of this chariot, but the fact that this
type is also represented by Figs. 9 and 10 must
be considered to prove the case in view of the
careful modelling of these chariots. Both types
are of Oriental derivations, the first type con-
nected with the light Egyptian chariot and the
second type with the more heavy Assyrian
chariot“.
In connection with the chariots some words
may be said on the arms and armoor represented
by the Ajia Irini sculptures. About helmets,
shields, swords, and arrows there are sufficient
notes published already in the excavation report,
but some remarks may here be added on one
“Homer, //. V, 231; VI, 39.
“ For th^ types of chariots, cf. Nuoffer, Der Renn-
wagen im Altertum, Diss. Leipzig 1904; Mercklin, Der
Rennwagen in Griechenland, Diss. Leipzig 1909; Nachod,
Der Rennwagen bei den Italikern, Diss. Leipzig 1909;
Lorimer, Homer and the Monum., pp. 307 ff.; Wace-
Stubbings, A Companion to Homer, pp. 521 f., 540 f.
offensive weapon, the spear, and one defensive,
the leather cuirass, both illustrated by the
sculptures here considered. Fig. 26 (No. 1276)
shows a warrior of the Second Proto-Cypriote
style, wearing a sword, a shield and a spear of
which there are traces, as it seems, in front
below the strap of the sword; the spear, if this
interpretation is right, has been held by the hand
of the right lifted arm. On a sculpture of small
size as that of Fig. 26 (No. 1276), the spear
could easily be of terracotta, but on sculptures
of larger size this could hardly have been the
case on account of the excessive fragility of a
long spear of terracotta; it is therefore likely
that the spears of the warrior statues of large
size were of wood. There are some sculptures
showing the right hand in such a Position that
it may be supposed to have held a spear, e.g.
Nos. 1385+1530 (op. ciL PI. CXCIV:2), 1070+
1072+1073+1075, 1189 {pp. cit. pp. 708, 715).
For the helmet (now missing) of this figure, see
p. 37.
A leather jerkin provided with a neck-coUar
is wom by Fig. 21 (No. 1843). The head of this
torso, as mentioned in the description (p. 15)
was joined separately and was probably that of
Fig. 17 (No. 1726). The joining part is missing,
but the head was found only 0.45 m. from the
torso and on the same level (both in Square K 8,
at a level of 94.4, resp. 94.9), the dimensions of
the head fit to those of the torso, the clay is the
same, both belong to the First Proto-Cypriote
style, and no other head without association
with a body and of dimensions fitting the torso
in question was found in Square K 8. Fig. 22 is
intended to show the reader how this statue may
have looked originally and, if the head against
all probability does not belong, the Impression
of the reconstruction must still be principally
right, since the head must be that of a warrior
assignable to the first Proto-Cypriote style. The
neck-coUar of the leather jerkin is unique, but a
jerkin of that material is also clearly represented
on other sculptures, although not pointed out in
the excavation report. Thus the jerkins of e.g.
35
Digitized by v^ooQle
Nos. 2106+2103 (op. dt. PL CXQ and 1728+
1740 {op. dt. PL CXCI:2, 3) arc clearly indicated
to havc bccn of leather as shown by thcir stiff
contour, ridged seams, and the widening
openings of the sleeves in Order to enable an
easier movement of the arms. Jerkins of leather
(and sometimes also of linen) were in use, as we
know, in Egypt and the Near EasP^ and similar
leather jerkins are also known from Grcece“.
The Oriental corslets were sometimes provided
with a coUar, although there is no exact parallel
to the Cypriote specimen here in question^*.
For the time being I must limit myself to the
Observation that the Ajia Irini sculptures prove
the existence of leather jerkins in the Archaic
period and that these jerkins sometimes were
provided with that particular neck-cover shown
by Fig. 22. I wish, however, to point out that a
study of the Cypriote sculptures, both those
found at Ajia Irini and elsewhere, will show
many varieties of the jerkins or corslets^L Such
a general study of Cypriote armour is out of
place here and must be postponed to a later
occasion.
Apart from the torso and head just discussed
the most interesting specimen of the First Proto-
Cypriote style obtained by the restoration work
is the head, Fig. 18 (No. 2794). The general
shape of this head, the eyes, nose, mouth, and
beard are so closely similar to those of Nos.
1 + 1618+1619 {op. dt. PL CXCI:1) and 1728+
1740 {op. dt. PL CXCI:2, 3) that these sculptures
must have been made by the same artist: the
only detail distinguishing No. 2794 from the
“ Bonnet, Die Waffen der Völker d. alt. Orients, pp.
209 ff.; Lorimer, op. dt., pp. 1% ff. For Cypriote lamellar
armours and their Oriental Connections, see Swed. Cyp.
Exp. IV:2, pp. 379 f.
” Lorimer, op. dt. pp. 134, 153, 1% ff.
Bonnet, op. dt. p. 213, Fig. 106; Lorimer, op. dt.
p. 198, Figs. 16, 17.
Just one example; the armour of e.g. op. dt. U, Pis.
CXa:l, CXaV:2, CXCVUI, CC:1, 2etc. with the leath-
er jerkin endlng at the waist and the chiton appearing
below that around the hips and upper part of thighs have
striking parallels in the equipment of the soldiers on the
warrior Stele from Mycenae and on the warrior vase from
that place (cf. Lorimer, op. dt. Pis. II, 2; III, la, b.).
36
two others is the incised double spiral indicating
the part of the beard below the mouth, whereas
that part of the beard is indicated by a small
protuberance on the other two sculptures
mentioned. No. 2106+2103 {op. dt. CXC,
CXCIIil) has perhaps not been made by the
same artist as the sculptures mentioned but by
a member of the same school of art and the
relief double spiral indicating a hair lock below
the helmet of No. 2106+2103 is a characteristic
detail associating this sculpture with No. 2794,
with its incised double spiral of a hair tuft
below the mouth.
Fig. 19, No. 2795, is unique among the Ajia
Irini sculptures in that it represents a small-sized
figure made in the manner of the large sculptures.
It has its nearest parallels in the later group of
the First Proto-Cypriote style corresponding to
the local style II at Ajia Irini (p. 4, n. 4), as shown
by a comparison with one of the leading sculp-
tures of that style, No. 1763+1845 {op. cit. PI.
CXCVIII): as the helmet of this statue is missing
we do not know how far it was similar to that
of No. 2795, but the tubulär legs, the narrow
waist, the shape of the head, nose, and beard,
etc. are quite similar.
Proceeding now to the sculptures of the
Second Proto-Cypriote style we may first point
out that the figure, Fig. 23 (No. 1748+2053),
represents a group of sculptures forming an
intermediate stage between the idol plastic and
the art sculpture (p. 4, n. 3).
The head, Fig. 27 (No. 2798), belongs to a
life-size statue and was modelled entirely by
hand. It has no exact parallel among the other
Ajia Irini sculptures of the Second Proto-
Cyptriote style but several features connect it
with various representatives of that style: the
protruding lips correspond to those of e.g. No.
1767 {op. dt. PL CCVI:5) and No. 2072+2075
{op. dt. PL CCX), the eyes are similar to those
of the latter statue but even still more to those
of No. 2021 {op. dt. PL CCVI:4) with their
bow-shaped lids; the brows with their narrow,
vertical incisions and the beard with its hair
Digitized by v^ooQle
indicated by small, dose indsions have striking
paiallels shown by a head in the Metropolitan
Museum of Art, New York (Cesnola, Atlas II,
PI. XVn: 129).
Many heads of the smaller sculptures are cast
in moulds (Figs. 24— 26). The head of the
Statuette, Fig. 24 (No. 1098+2796) has many
parallels among the moulded heads of the local
Style III at Ajia Irini, e.g. Nos. 936, 1037+2454,
1724, 1725 {Swed. Cyp. Exp. II PI. CCIX) and the
head, Fig. 25 (No. 2797) is made in the same
mould as that of the Statuette No. 1141 {op. dt.
PI. CCXII:3, 6, 7) belonging to the local Style IV
at Ajia Irini. The head of the Statuette, Fig. 26
(No. 1276) mentioned above (p. 20), shows a
technical peculiarity: on top of the skull there
is a roughly oval-shaped hole cut when the clay
was still unbaked; this hole was evidently inten-
ded for receiving a separately made helmet. The
moulded face is 20% larger than that of No. 2384
(op. dt. PI. CCXXXII:15), which is stylistically
akin to No. 1276 and may represent a second
"Abformung” of that prototype**.
The sculptures of the Neo-Cypriote style com-
prise two spedmens: one fragment of a head,
Fig. 28 (No. 915) and one entire statue, Fig. 29
(No. 1054+1325+2799), both artistic products
of excellent quality.
The fragment No. 915 shows a strong stylistic
similarity to the helmeted Neo-Cypriote head
from Salamis, in fragmentary condition illu-
strated in Joum. Hell. Stud. XII, 1891, p. 149,
Fig. 7 and in restored condition in Swed. Cyp.
Exp. IV:2, PI. IX, below, facing p. 108. The
eye-brows and helmet of No. 915 are plain,
whereas the brows of the Salamis head are
’Teathered” and the helmet decorated with
circular indsions but otherwise the part pre-
served of the face of No. 915 is almost identical
with the corresponding part of the Salamis head.
The Statue No. 1054+1325+2799 represents
the Neo-Cypriote Version of the terracotta
sculptures with modelled legs of which the First
" Cf. Opusc. arch. II, pp. 1 ff.
Proto-Cypriote version is represented e.g. by
Nos. 1 + 1618+1619, 1728+1740 (op. dt. II, PI.
CXCI), 1385+1530 (op. dt. PI. CXCIV:2),
1763+1845 (op. dt. PI. CXCVIII), 2102 (op. dt.
PI. CCII) and the Second Proto-Cypriote version
by No. 1767 (op. dt. Pis. CCV:1; CCVI:1).
No. 947 (op. dt. p. 702) forms another instance
of a similar Neo-Cypriote sculpture with
modelled legs, uncovered by the dress, but the
upper part of that statue has not yet been iden-
tified. It can thus be seen that sculptures with
modelled legs were fairly rare at Ajia Irini after
the time of the First Proto-Cypriote style and,
as shown below, this type of body is, so
far, altogether without repräsentatives among
the Ajia Irini sculptures of the Cypro-Greek
style. The Neo-Cypriote body of the sculpture
here in question and that of No. 947 diifer in a
characteristic way from that of the Proto-
Cypriote style by its slender structure and the
delicate, subtle rehnement of the details, a
stylistic feature that is typical of the correspond-
ing stone sculptures of the Neo-Cypriote style
(op. dt. IV:2, p. 108).
Among the sculptures assignable to the
Archak Cypro-Greek style there are two figures,
Figs. 37 and 38 (Nos. 2434 and 2446+2448),
which are intermediate specimens between idol
plastic and art sculpture, No. 2434 approching
closer to the category of art sculpture than No.
2446+2448.
The body of the Cypro-Greek sculptures, as
far as preserved, is tubulär or oval in section
and there is only one instance, the female
statue, Fig. 33 (No. 2462+2801), with modelled
feet wearing pointed shoes protruding below the
Chiton. There is no evidence of moulds having
been used for making the faces, which seem
to have been modelled altogether by hand. The
moulding technique was apparently not used at
Ajia Irini by the artists working in the First
Proto-Cypriote and the Cypro-Greek styles, but
only by those working in the Second Proto-
Cypriote and Neo-Cypriote styles (cf. above and
op. dt. IV:2, pp. 99, 105, 107). The individual
37
DigitizecJ by v^ooQle
traits of the Cypro-Greek sculptures from Ajia
Irini are very distinct and the characteristics of
each artist are quite clear. The profile of the
faces of Figs. 30 (No. 2502) and 36 (No. 2469)
are exactly similar and also their front views,
although the face of No. 2469 is broader than
that of No. 2502. The similarity of the facial
features is so great that we must suppose that
these two sculptures were made by the same
artist. The same holds good for the figures of
Figs. 32, 33 and 35 (Nos. 2456+2800, 2462+
2801, 2467+2802); the thick, fleshy nose, the
prominent, large eyes, and the protruding lips
are identical as can be best seen from the profile
photos of the faces; the base of helmets of the
nude figures, Figs. 32 and 35 (Nos. 2456+2800
and 2467+2802), ends at the hair falling on the
back of the head and in the ears of all the three
figures there are earrings of exactly the same
type. The dimple on the chin of the female
figure, Fig. 33, and the seemingly more protruding
chin of the male faces to mark the beard have of
course no artistic bearing. These details as well as
other differences in hair-dress etc. serve to indi-
cate the different sexes, and the fact that the eyes
of the male figure No. 2467+2802 are not
plastically indicated, but only painted, does not
effect the style but is only a question of artistic
technique. It cannot therefore be doubted that
these three sculptures are the work of the same
artist. In discussing the sculptures of the Proto-
Cypriote style we have seen that some of them
are also assignable to one and the same artist
or at least the same school (p. 36). Düring my
studies on the Ajia Irini sculptures in connection
with the presentation of the material here
published I have made several observations bear-
ing upon the attribution of groups of sculptures
to the same artists, but I cannot tackle this
Problem in this context, as it requires a compiete
consideration of the whole sculptural material
from Ajia Irini. This problem I intend to discuss
on another occasion.
Among the small human figurines of Idol
plastic the female idol, Fig. 39 (No. 2804),
38
attracts particular interest, in part because it is
one of the few female figures represented among
the sculptures from Ajia Irini^*, in part because
it is one of the earliest statuettes in human
shape found at Ajia Irini. This type of Statuette
may be as early as Cypro-Geometric I — II*®,
but the similar statuettes found in the sanctua-
ries of Ajios Jakovos” and Idalion“ cannot be
proved to be earlier than Cypro-Geometric III,
though they may in fact have been that, and the
earliest date of the Ajia Irini Statuette, although
unfortunately without known find context,
seems also to be Cypro-Geometric III or, at
the latest, the early phase of Cypro-Archaic®:
for typological reasons a later date is quite
unlikely.
The Statuette, Fig. 40, belongs to Type 3;
the specimens of this type with known find
context belong to Cypro-Archaic I; the statuettes
of this type are, however, so few that it cannot
be determined whether they are restricted to
that period alone or not. The Statuette, Fig. 40.
is of a crude workmanship: its thick brows and
large pellet eyes resemble very much those of the
In Arch. Rel. Wiss, XXX, 1932, pp. 342 f. Sjöqvist
mentions only two exoeptions from tbe rule that tbe soilp-
tures are male, the moulded figure (op. dt. II, PI. CCXXX
111:5) and a figurine seated on a throne {pp. cit. n. CC
XXXIllilO, 11). Although the exceptions are still few, we
may add: the female dancers {op. dt. PI. CCXXXI11:6).
the female Partners in the group of ring-dancers published
here, Fig. 16; the female idol, No. 2362 {op. cit. PI. CX
XXIX :2), the female idol here discussed (Fig. 39); the
Cypro-Greek sculpture (Fig. 33) and, probably, the head
of the Second Proto-Cypriote style (Fig. 25) on account of
its wearing a pendant on a neck-string (p. 20). Whether
its counter-part {op. dt. PI. CCX1I:3, 6, 7) is also female
is uncertain as it wears no female attributes.
Similar, though not identical, statuettes have been
found in Tomb 415 and 419 at Lapithos dating from
Cypro-Geometric II, resp. I {op. dt. I, PI. XLIX;4, 5).
" Op. dt. pp. 361 ff., PI. LXVUI:6, 44.
“ Op. dt. II, p. 587, Female figures, Type 2, assignable
to the local Period 4 at Idalion {op. dt. p. 616; PI. CL
XXXII: 14); this period dates from Geometrie III and the
early phase of Cypro-Archaic I, although it may have in-
cluded also some poor remains of Cypro-Geometric I-ll
{op. dt. p. 624).
** The earliest sculptures of a human shape found at
Ajia Irini belong to the local period 3, covering the later
half of Cypro-Geometric III and the first half of Cypro-
Archaic I (cf. p. 34).
Digitized by t^ooQle
female Statuette, Fig. 39, and for typological
reasons the Statuette, Fig. 40, may thus be
assigned to Cypro-Geometric III. Unfortunately
the fragments of which it has been put together
are without known find context.
The Statuette, Fig. 41, of Type 7, can be
associated with the late phase of the First Proto-
Cypriote style, on the evidence of the features
of its face**, and it can therefore be assigned to
the early phase of Cypro-Archaic II {op. dt.
IV:2, p. 208).
Among the large human figorines of Idol
ptostic the Statuette, Fig. 42 (No. 2316), is a large-
sized adorant idol, a counterpart to the Statu-
ette, Fig. 39, mentioned above, but it is bisexual,
as indicated by the fenude breasts and the beard;
further, the snake Curling along the back of the
figure associates it with the adorant bisexual
Minotaur figures: in fact, this idol represents an
intermediate stage between the theriomorph, or
semi-theriomorph, and human shape of the
votive figures. It can be assigned to Cypro-Geo-
metric III or the early phase of Cypro-Archaic I
(cf. below), and it shows that the decisive Step
towards a conception of the deity itself in human
shape was taken in the period mentioned. This
is further indicated by the fact that the first
human figures without bisexual or theriomorph
association with the time past begin to appear in
this period, as proved by the small Statuette,
Fig. 39, and the larger Statuette, Fig. 43 (No.
2372), which together with the bisexual figure
mentioned and the Statuette No. 2321 form the
three spedmens of large-sized human figurines
assignable to the local Period 3 at Ajia Irini
{op. dt. II, p. 814), as we know covering the
later part of Cypro-Geometric III and the early
phase of Cypro-Archaic I (cf. p. 34).
The other large-sized statuettes (Figs. 44—51)
are normal representatives of idol plastic Con-
temporary with the art sculpture of the First
and Second Proto-Cypriote styles. Some of
these statuettes reflect vaguely, others more
“a. e.g. op. dt. Pis. CXCVIII, ca.
closely, the style of the Contemporary art sculp-
ture, as already pointed out in the excavation
report (op. dt. pp. 790 f.) and in the general
Classification made in op. dt. IV:2, p. 127. In
the course of time stylistic qualities mark more
and more this idol plastic, so that it is often
impossible to make a distinction between these
categories, idol plastic and art sculpture, as also
shown by the intermediate specimens mentioned
above in the sections dealing with the Second
Proto-Cyptriote and the Cypro-Greek styles
(pp. 36 f.).
Some remarks have to be added on a few
Objects of various character (Figs. 52—56).
It is instructive to compare the sphinx forming
part of a throne, Fig. 52, with the sphinxes
flanking a throne of a similar kind upon which
a female figurine is seated (op. dt. II, PI.
CCXXXIII:10, 11). The latter throne is assign-
able to the local Period 3 at Ajia Irini (for the
interesting conditions of finds, cf. op. dt. pp.
806 f.), and dates therefore from the later part
of Cypro-Geometric III or, more likely for
stylistic reasons, the early part of Cypro-
Archaic I: the facial features of the sphinx
approach those characteristic of the First Proto-
Cypriote style. The facial features of the sphinx,
Fig. 52, are clearly Neo-Cypriote and these
stylistic criteria are confirmed by the find con-
texts: the fragment was found in Square L 6 at a
level of 97.7—98.7, i.e. it belongs to the local
Period 5 at Ajia Irini, c. 560— 540 B.C., a period
in which the Neo-Cypriote style flourished.
The stylized flowers, Fig. 53, have of course
been held by one or two votive statues, most
probably female.
The thunderbolts, Fig. 54, on the other hand,
must have been attributes of a statue of the god
worshipped, confirming that he was a weather
god. No sculpture that can be proved to repre-
sent this god has yet been identified but among
the sculptural fragments there are some which
look promising for such an identification. More
fragments must, however, be found to ascertain
the matter. The thunderbolts to the right on Fig.
39
Digitized by v^ooQle
54 have the lower terminals of the same shape
as the flowers (Fig. 53), intended for being
inserted into a hand. The thunderbolt, Fig. 54,
to the left, cannot have been inserted directly
into a hand but must have been fixed to a shaft.
Sjöqvist has shown that the god worshipped at
Ajia Irini has been related to the Near Eastem
fertility and weather god, in the religious
imagination of the worshippers conceived in
the shape of a bull, and if we study the repre-
sentations of the various types of thunderbolts
associated with these Near Eastem gods we find
that besides the double-ended thunderbolts of
three or more rays, the single-ended thunderbolts
with one, two or three rays are also represented
and the thunderbolt with bent shaft-hole may
well have formed part of such an one-sided
thunderbolt with two or three rays“.
Fig. 55 shows one ear of a Statuette pierced by
**For these various types of thunderbolts associated
with the Near Eastem fertility and weather god, cf. Jahrb,
deutsch, arch. Inst. XLEI, 1928, pp. 101 ff., Figs. 12,
14—27, 32—38. Sometimes these thunderbolts are held by
the god, sometimes fixed on the back of the bull.
four holes, probably used for fastening an ear-
omament of which no specimens have been
found so far, but is often represented on the
sculptures“ and is usually called ear-ciqi.
Finally, Fig. 56, the vaae in the flhape of an
astragalos. Its date is not later than the early
phase of Cypro-Archaic II, because it was found
in a layer containing potsherds of Types IV and
V, corresponding to those found in the layer
of the local Period 4 at Ajia Irini, covering the
time between c. 650 and 560 B.C. We know that
astragaloi, both real ones and imitated in
various materials, were used as votive offerings
in the sanctuaries and given as tombgifts to the
deceased; they were also used as adomment on
earrings and necklaces and as amulets. Further,
they were used as weights and as vases, in Greece
fairly often represented by Black Glazed
pottery*’.
“ Swed. Cyp. Exp. IV:2, Pis. 11:3; VD:!, 2; Vni:2.
For a recent survey of the material in question see
Hampe, Die Stele aus Pharsalos im Louvre (107. Winckel>
mannsprogramm, Berlin 1951, pp. 12 f., nn. 3 — 11).
40
Digitized by v^ooQle
Kreta, Tiber und Stora Mellösa.
Bemerkungen zu zwei Bronzeschwertem
aus dem Tiber
EVERT BAUDOU
Die zwei Bronzeschwerter Abb. 1—4 sind im
Jahre 1960 in Rom im Antiquitätenhandel er-
worben. Hierbei gegebenen Auskünften zufolge
sind die beiden Schwerter, zusammen mit
einer bedeutend jüngeren Bronzeschale, nach
einer Ueberschwemmung im Strandlager am
Tiber oberhalb von Rom einige Tage vor der
Erwerbung gefunden^ Die Fundangaben schei-
nen glaubwürdig zu sein, auch wenn sie nicht
näher kontrolliert werden können. In diesem
Aufsatz gehe ich davon aus, dass der Fundort
richtig angegeben ist.
Beide Schwerter gehören zu der grossen
Gruppe der Griifzungenschwerter. lieber den
Ursprung dieser Schwerter ist seit langem viel
diskutiert worden. Durch ihre grosse Verbreitung
vom östlichen Mittelmeergebiet und Kleinasien
über Griechenland und Italien, Mittel- und
Westeuropa bis hinauf nach Mittelskandinavien
erhält die Frage nach dem Aufkommen und
nach der Entwicklung der Gruppe grosse Be-
deutung. Kaum irgendeine andere so relativ ein-
heitliche Form vorgeschichtlicher Metalldenk-
' Die Schwerter (und die Bronzeschale) sind ein Ge-
schenk S.M. König Gustav VI. Adolfs an das Medel-
havsmuseet, Stockholm. Inv. Nr. MM 1960:25 (Abb. 2)
und MM 1960:26 (Abb. 1). Ich danke Professor Axel
Boöthius, Rom, für die Provenienzangaben.
mäler zeigt eine so weite Verbreitung. Die Ein-
heitlichkeit ist indessen zu einem gewissen Grade
trügerisch. Eine genaue Prüfung zeigt, dass es
zahlreiche Varianten mit lokaler, begrenzter
Ausbreitung gibt. Ebenso muss man damit
rechnen, dass das organische Material aus Horn,
Knochen oder Holz, das die Griffzunge beklei-
dete, eine etwas ungleiche Ausformung innerhalb
der verschiedenen Gebiete hatte. Die Ähnlich-
keit der GriSzungenschwerter über grosse Teile
Europas ist somit teilweise nur scheinbar. Es ist
daher von grösstem Gewicht, die kleinen Unter-
schiede, die Vorkommen, im Detail nachzuweisen
und die Zeitstellung der verschiedenen Varianten
festzulegen.
Die grundlegenden Arbeiten für das Studium
der Griffzungenschwerter sind von Naue, Sprock-
hoff imd Cowen geschrieben*. Naues Publikation
erschien 1903 und seine TypeneinteUung ist
nicht genau genug, um heutigen Ansprüchen zu
genügen. Sprockhoffs Arbeit von 1931 und die
von Cowen von 1956 haben die Forschung einen
•J. Naue, Die vorrömischen Schwerter aus Kupfer,
Bronze und Eisen, 1903. — E. Sprockhoff, Die germa-
nischen Griifzungenschwerter, 1931. — J. D. Cowen,
Eine Einführung in die Geschichte der bronzenen Griif-
zungenschwerter in Süddeutschland und den angrenzen-
den Gebieten, 36. Ber.d.Röm.-Germ. Komm. 1955, 1956.
41
Digitized by v^ooQle
grossen Schritt weitergeführt. SprockhofT be-
handelt die Griffzungenschwerter in Nord-
europa und Cowen dieselbe Schwertergruppe in
Süddeutschland und den angrenzenden Gebieten.
Eine ebenso vollständige Durcharbeitung der
Griffzungenschwerter im Mittelmeerraum gibt
es noch nicht. Die grosse Gruppe früher Griff-
zungenschwerter in Nordeuropa (Sprockhoff
Typ la und Ib) mit mindestens ca. 200 Exempla-
ren gehört zu Montelius’ Periode llb-c. In der
mitteleuropäischen Chronologie entspricht das
Reineckes Bronzezeit C sowie möglicherweise
teilweise Bronzezeit D. Aus Süddeutschland
und den angrenzenden Gebieten verzeichnet
Cowen 32 Exemplare derselben Form. Er datiert
sie in die Bronzezeit C. Reinecke hat nach-
gewiesen, dass zumindest Sprockhoffs Typ la
mit ausgebuchteter Zunge von Schwertemdes
Keszthely (Boiu)-Typs in Ungarn hergeleitet
werden kann’. Hingegen ist noch nicht klar-
gelegt, wie Typ Ib mit gerader Zunge entstanden
ist. In der Bz D und in der frühen Hallstattzeit A
kommen in Mitteleuropa Sprockhoffs Griff-
zungenschwerter „vom gewöhnlichen Typ” vor,
die — zum Unterschied von der Mehrzahl derer
vom Typ la und Ib — mehrere Nieten in der
Zunge sowie schräge Schultern haben. Cowen
nennt diese Form den „Nenzinger Typ”. Im
Jahre 1931 kannte Sprockhoff ca. 350 solche
Schwerter in Nordeuropa, wo sie Montelius"
Periode III zugehören, und Cowen im Jahre 1956
ca. 50 Exemplare in Süddeutschland und den an-
grenzenden Gebieten. Dieser Typ ist von allen
Griffzungenschwertem der am weitesten verbrei-
tete. Seit langem ist er auch in einer kleineren
Zahl aus Griechenland und aus dem östlichen
Mittelmeerraum bekannt. Es ist die erste Form
von Griffzungenschwertem, die sowohl in Mittel-
europa wie im östlichen Mittelmeergebiet vor-
kommt. Mehrere Archäologen, u. a. Childe,
haben die Idee der mitteleuropäischen Griff-
zungenschwerter aus dem östlichen Mittelmeer-
* P. Reinecke, Zur Geschichte der Griffzungenschwer-
ter, Germania 15, 1931, 217 ff.
42
raum herleiten wollen*. Der Nenzinger Typ hat
indessen in Mitteleuropa die reiche Entwicklung
von Sprockhoffs Typ I als Hintergrund und
ähnliche Voraussetzungen können im ägäischen
Gebiet oder in Kleinasien nicht nachgewiesen
werden*. Eine andere Sache ist es, dass es dort
frühe Griffzungenschwerter gibt, die jedoch
nicht mit den mitteleuropäischen Formen ver-
knüpft werden können. Soviel wir jetzt sehen
können, so dürfte es am richtigsten sein, mit
einer mitteleuropäischen Entwicklung von Griff-
zungenschwertem zu rechnen, die von dem
ungarischen Boiu Typ ausgehen, und mit einer
hiervon gänzlich getrennten Entwicklung im
östlichen Mittelmeerraum, einer Entwicklung,
die noch nicht völlig untersucht ist. In der Ha
A-Periode treffen sich somit in der ägäischen
Welt die ursprüngheh aus dem Mittelmeerraum
herstammenden und die mitteleuropäischen Ty-
pen, die als Import eingeführt werden oder als lo-
kale Nachbildungen entstehen. Das gilt nicht nur
für die Griffzungenschwerter sondern auch für
andere Bronzeformen, wie Lanzenspitzen und
Messer. Man kann zur gleichen Zeit mitteleuro-
päische Typen im östlichen Mittelmeergebiet
aufspüren und Impulse und Importstücke aus
Griechenland nördlich über den Balkan nach
dem östUchen Mitteleuropa und westlich über
das Mittelmeer nach Westeuropa hin nach-
weisen. In diesem Aufsatz soll untersucht wer-
den, wie sich die zwei Tiberschwerter in diesen
Zusammenhang einfügen.
Das wohlerhaltene Schwert Abb. 1 und 3 ist
61,1 cm lang. Die Zunge ist in der Mitte schwach
ausgebuchtet und das Heft hat V-Form. Die
Zunge wird von niedrigen Rändern begrenzt
1,0 bis 1,1 cm hoch, die in ihrem obersten Teil
ausgesprochene Hörner haben. Am Knaufende
*V. G. Childe, The Final Bronze Age in the Near
East and in Temperate Europe. Proc. of the Prehist. Soc.
N.S. XIV, 1948, 183 ff. - Vgl. auch H. W. Catling,
Bronze Cut-and-Thrust Swords in the Eastem Medi-
terranean. Proc. of the Prehist. Soc. N.S. XXIl, 1956,
102 ff., der jedoch ganz von Naues alter Einteilung aus-
geht.
» Cowen, 1956, 68 f.
Digitized by LjOOQle
Abb, 3-4. MM 1960:26 und 25. Detail. M. ca. 1:2.
Abb. 1—2. Am Tiber gefundene Schwerter , MM 1960:26
und 25. Medelhavsmuseety Stockholm. Etwas kleiner als
1:4.
des Griffes befindet sich ein 3,2 cm langer
spatenförmiger Zungenfortsatz. Die Zunge weist
4 und das Heft 2x3 Nietlöcher auf. Das erste
und das dritte Nietloch ist grob von derselben
Seite her eingeschlagen, das zweite und vierte
von der entgegengesetzten Seite. Die Nietlöcher
im Heft sind sämtlich von der gleichen Seite her
eingeschlagen ausser dem untersten links auf
Abb. 3. Die Zunge ist 0,45 cm dick. Der Ueber-
gang vom Heft zur Klinge ist weich geschwungen.
Die Klinge ist breit und nach unten zu ausge-
buchtet, d. h. blattförmig. An ihrer breitesten
Stelle ist sie 4,1 cm und am schmaleren oberen
43
Digitized by v^ooQle
Teil unter dem Heft 3,5 cm breit. Die Klinge
hat nahezu rhombischen Querschnitt, der untere
Teil ist jedoch flacher. Die Schneide ist vom
Rücken der Klinge durch eine scharfe Kante
abgesetzt. Die Patina ist abgeschliifen ausser auf
der Zunge und auf Teilen der Schneide. Die
erhaltene Patina ist blauschwarz.
Das zweite Schwert, Abb. 2 und 4, ist 72,3 cm
lang. Auch dieses ist wohlerhalten. Die Zunge
buchtet im unteren Teil aus. Die Ausbuchtung
ist gut markiert und viel deutlicher als bei dem
ersten Schwert. Das Heft hat nahezu U-Form.
Die Zunge wird von niedrigen Rändern begrenzt,
0,9— 1,0 cm hoch, die in ihrem oberen Teil in
ausgesprochene Hörner auslaufen. Die Zunge
hat eine 3,8 cm lange Verlängerung. Im unteren
Teil der Zunge befindet sich ein Nietloch und
im unteren Teil des Heftes 2x1 Nietlöcher. Die
Nietlöcher sind gut gearbeitet und abgeschliifen.
Die Zunge ist 0,45 cm dick. Der Uebergang
zwischen Heft und Klinge geschieht in schärfe-
rem Winkel als beim Schwert Abb. 1. Die Klinge
ist blattförmig, an ihrer breitesten Stelle 3,7 cm
und am schmaleren oberen Teil 3,1 cm breit. Die
ganze Klinge hat deutlich rhombischen Quer-
schnitt. Die Schneide ist vom Rücken durch eine
schwach markierte Kante abgesetzt. Das Schwert
ist mit gleichförmiger, blauschwarzer Patina von
gleicher Art wie beim ersten Schwert belegt. Auf
der abgebildeten Seite, Abb. 4, sieht man die
Grenze für den Heftbelag.
Cowens Arbeit über die süddeutschen Grilf-
zungenschwerter kann zum Ausgangspunkt für
die Diskussion dienen. Beide italische Schwerter
gehören zur Hauptgruppe unverzierte Griff-
zungenschwerter mit blattförmigen Klingen*.
Diese Schwerter werden in drei Typen eingeteilt,
den Erbenheimer Typ (20 Exemplare und eine
Gussform), den Lettener Typ (9 Exemplare) und
den Hemigkofener Typ (49 Exemplare). Vom
Erbenheimer Typ weist Cowen auch eine
Variante nach, die Ennsdorfer Variante (3
Exemplare). Der Erbenheimer und Lettener
• CowEN, 1956, 72 ff.
44
Typ hat einen markierten Griffzungenfortsatz
geradeso wie die zwei hier besprochenen ita-
lischen Schwerter. Das Schwert Abb. 1 gehört
zum Lettener Typ, der durch eine sehr schwach
ausbuchtende Zunge mit 3—5 Nieten und 4-6
Nieten am Heft gekennzeichnet ist (Abb. 5—6).
Die Länge variiert zwischen 62,4 und 59,5 cm.
Das italische Schwert fügt sich sehr gut hier ein.
Kein Schwert vom Lettener Typ ist in einem
datierbaren Zusammenhang gefunden worden.
Die grosse Ähnlichkeit mit dem Hemigkofener
Typ (Abb. 8-10) einerseits und dem Erben-
heimer Typ andererseits lässt, nach Cowen, ver-
muten dass der Lettener Typ eine Hybridform
zwischen diesen beiden darstellt. Da beide Haupt-
formen mittels datierbarer Grabfunde zur Ha A
gerechnet werden können, ist eine Datierung
des Lettener Typs in die gleiche Zeit durchaus
glaublich. Cowen versucht den Erbenheimer
Typ in die „frühe Ha A”-Periode zu begrenzen
und teilt hierdurch auch den Lettener Typ der
frühen Ha A-Periode zu. Diese Begrenzung
dürfte nicht möglich sein, da der eine der beiden
Grabfunde vom Erbenheimer Typ (Erbenheim
bei Wiesbaden) in die frühe Ha A-Zeit (Ha A 1)
und der andere (Wollmesheim in der Rhein-
pfalz) in die späte Ha A-Periode (Ha A 2)
gehört.
Das Schwert Abb. 2 kommt dem Erbenheimer
Typ am nächsten (Abb. 11 — 13). Bezeichnend
ist eine in der Mitte weich ausbuchtende Zunge
mit zahlreichen Nietlöchem sowohl am Griff
wie am Heft. Das Heft hat nahezu U-Form. Die
Klinge hat einen flachen rautenförmigen Quer-
schnitt, ist lang und elegant geschwungen. £>ie
Länge ist zwischen 74,5 und 64,5 cm, im Durch-
schnitt 69,0 cm. Das italische Schwert unter-
scheidet sich von den übrigen durch eine un-
gewöhnlich kleine Anzahl Nieten, nur drei, und
dadurch, dass die Ausbuchtung der Zunge tiefer
als normal liegt. Die U-Form des Heftes ist
ebenfalls deutlicher als bei den von Cowen ab-
gebildeten Schwertern. Wie erwähnt wird der
Erbenheimer Typ in die Ha A-Periode datiert.
Ein Verzeichnis von in Italien gefundenen
Digitized by v^ooQle
Abb. 5—7. Lettener Typ. Fundorte: Basel; Birsfelden bei Abb. 8—10. Hemigkofener Typ. Fundorte: Zihlkanalj
Basel; Rouen. M. etwas grösser als 1:4. Nach Cowen 1956. Schweiz; Venlo, Holland; Boppard, Rheinprovinz. M. etwas
grösser als 1:4. Nach Cowen 1956.
45
Digitized by v^ooQle
Schwertern aus der Bronzezeit ist 1926 vor
Rellini veröffentlicht und 1942 von Caprino er-
gänzt worden’. Die Verzeichnisse enthaltet
alles in allem 332 Schwerter, von denen 12(
auf dem Festland, 23 auf Sizilien und 189 aui
Sardinien gefunden sind. Selbst wenn nocl:
einige weitere Schwerter in kleineren Samm-
lungen erhalten sind, so ist man berechtigt, die
grosse Menge der von Rellini-Caprino publi-
zierten Schwerter als repräsentativ für den
Gesamtbestand anzusehen. Folgende Schwerter
gehören dem Lettener Typ an oder nähern sich
ihm:
1. Am Trasimenischen See, Umbria, Länge 75
cm, gerade Klinge. Schwach U-förmiges Heft.
4-f 2 x2 Nietlöcher. Jetzt in unbekannter Samm-
lung. — A. Ancona, Le armi, le fibule e qualche
allo cimelio della sua coUezione archeologica.
1886. Nr. 44 (Foto). Naue 1903, Taf. VI12
(Zeichnung). Abb. 14 in diesem Aufsatz. Von
Rellini-Caprino nicht aufgeführt.
2. AleronOy Umbria, Länge 64 cm, gerade
Klinge. V-förmiges Heft. 5+2x2 Nietlöcher.
Mus. Preist, di Roma. — Montelius, La civil,
prim, en Italic 11,1, 1904, PI. 126,11. Rellini
1926, Nr. 77.
3. Am Tiber, nördlich von Rom, Lazio, Schwert
Abb. 1 und 3 in diesem Aufsatz.
4. Fucino, Abruzzi, Länge 62 cm. Gerade oder
blattförmige Klinge? V-förmiges Heft. 4+2x3
Nictlöchcr. Mus. Preist, di Roma. — Monte-
lius 1904, PI. 142,9 (nur Oberteil). Rellini 1926,
Nr. 87.
5. Fucino, Abruzzi, Länge 63 cm. Gerade oder
blattförmige Klinge? V-fÖrmiges Heft. 2-r2x2
’ U. Reluni, Per lo Studio dcllc spade di broozo
scopertc in Italia, Bull, di Paletn. It. XLVI, 1926, 73 ff.-
C. Caprino, Spada trovata presso lenne (Arsoli), Bull,
di Paletn. It. N.S. V-VI, 1941-42, 198 ff. - Vgl.
K. R. Maxwell-Hyslop, Notes on some distinctive
types of Bronzes from Populonia, Etruria. Proc. of ihe
Prehist. Soc. N.S. XII, 1956, 127. Anm. 1.
Abb. 11 — 13. Erbenheimer Typ. Fundorte: Steinamagfr,
Urgarn: Bönnigheim, Württemberg; Heilbronn, Württem-
berg. M. etwas grösser als 1:4. Nach Cowen 1956.
Digitized by LjOOQle
Karte 1. Verbreitung des Lettener
Typs und nahestehender Variante
mit gerader Klinge in Italien.
Nietlöchcr. Mus. Preist, di Roma. — Montclius
1904, PL 142,10 (nur Oberteü), Rellini 1926,
Nr. 88.
6. Colle Brignile di S. Benedetto in PerilliSy
Abruzzi. Länge 65 cm. Gerade oder blattförmige
Klinge? 10 Nietlöcher. Keine Abbildung publi-
ziert, aber Rellinis Beschreibung ist so genau,
dass das Schwert trotzdem mit grosser Wahr-
scheinlichkeit dieser Gruppe zugeteilt werden
kann: „Spada a codolo piatto munito di 10 fori
pei chiodi, 6 rimasti; in capo linguetta verticale
fra due brevi appendici divergenti.” Als Typ
gibt Rellini Montelius 1904, PI. 142,10, d.h. das
oben erwähnte Schwert Nr. 5, an. Mus. Preist,
di Roma. — Rellini 1926, Nr. 89.
7. Puglie. Länge 61 cm, gerade Klinge, V-för-
miges Heft. 3+2x3 Nietlöcher. Jetzt in un-
bekannter Sammlung. — Naue 1903, Taf. VII,6,
Abb. 15 in diesem Aufsatz. Bei Rellini-Caprino
nicht aufgeführt.
Folgende Gussform und zwei Schwerter ge-
hören am ehesten dem Erbenheimer Typ an:
1. Piverone bei IvreOy Piemonte. Gussform aus
Steatit in zwei Hälften, Länge 83 cm. Für
Schwerter in drei Längen: 75, 72 und 65 cm.
Blattförmige Klinge. Das Heft beinahe U-förmig.
Die Form gibt keine Nietlöcher an. Wurde 1942
in der Chiesa Parrochiale aufbewahrt. — P.
Barocelli, Bullet. Paletn. di It. N.S. II, 1938,
130 f. Caprino 1942, Nr. 5. Cowen 1956, 131,
Nr. 13.
2. Casaley Veneto. Länge nach der angege-
benen Skala ca. 44 cm, (ist das möglich?).
Schwach blattförmige Klinge. Heft schwach
U-förmig. 4+2x2 Nietlöcher. Museo Civico
di Treviso. — R. Battaglia, Bull. Paletn. di It.,
Vol. fuori Serie 67-68, 1958-59, 284, Abb.
98 b. Von Rellini-Caprino nicht genannt.
3. Am Tibety nördlich von Romy Lazio. Schwert
Abb. 2 und 4 in diesem Aufsatz.
Aus FucinOy Abruzzi liegt ein weiteres Schwert
vor, das die Kennzeichen des Erbenheimer Typs
47
Digitized by v^ooQle
zeigt, die in der Mitte ausbuchtende Zunge,
zahlreiche Nietlöcher (3+2x2), lange ge-
schwungene Klinge (Montelius 1904, PI. 142,5.
Rellini 1926, Nr. 86). Die Länge beträgt nach
der Abbildungsskala 69 cm, d. h. genau die
Länge, die für den Durchschnitt des Typs an-
gegeben wird. Die Klinge buchtet nur schwach
aus, wie bei dem Exemplar vom Tiber Abb. 1.
Die einzige Abweichung besteht darin, dass der
Griffzungenfortsatz fehlt. Dieses Exemplar ist
die Ennsdorfer Variante, von der Cowen nur
drei Exemplare angibt, eines aus Österreich
(Ennsdorf, Grab aus Ha A), eines aus der
Tschechoslowakei (Karpathorussland) und eines
aus Polen (Galizien)®. Diese Form ist so selten
und so zerstreut, dass sie kaum verdient als
eigene Variante bezeichnet zu werden. Es ist
eine rein zufällige Form, die hier und da einmal
innerhalb oder ausserhalb der Grenzen des Ver-
breitungsgebietes des Erbenheimer Typs vor-
kommt.
Nichts ist über die näheren Fundumstände
aller dieser Schwerter bekaimt. Nichts in datier-
barem Zusammanhang liegt vor. Mit Vorbehalt
für eine kleinere zeitliche Verschiebung kann
man für die italischen Schwerter dieselbe Ge-
brauchszeit annehmen wie für die mitteleuro-
päischen, d. h. Ha A. In absoluten Jahreszahlen
würde dies, nach Müller-Karpe, das 12—11.
Jahrhundert v. Chr. bedeuten und in italischer
Periodenbezeichnung die ältere „Protovillanova-
Periode”.
Mit Ausnahme des Schwertes von Puglie liegt
die erste Gruppe gut in Mittelitalien gesammelt
(Karte 1). Auch ihrem Typ nach gehört sie
eng zusanunen. Einige haben jedoch gerade
Klinge, während eines oder einige die für den
Lettener Typ charakteristische Blattform zeigt,
ln Nordueropa gibt es ebenfalls eine kleine
Schwertgruppe, die dem Lettener Typ nahesteht
aber durch eine gerade Klinge gekennzeichnet
ist. Mindestens vier Schwerter gehören hierhin,
darunter eines von Stora Mellösa in Närke in
•Cowen 1956, 76 ff.
Mittelschweden (Abb. 16) und eines aus Spandau
bei Berlin (Abb. 17)*. Sowohl Sprockhoff wie
Cowen halten es für das wahrscheinlichste, dass
die nordische Gruppe einer einheimischen Werk-
statt entstammt. Cowen nimmt an, dass diese
Schwerter einheimische Abwandlungen impor-
tierter Beispiele des Erbenheimer Typs sind
(Schwerter von Parum in Mecklenburg und
Bremen).
Die nordeuropäische und die mittelitalische
Gruppe sind auffallend ähnlich, was darauf
beruht, dass diese Varianten unter gleichen Vor-
aussetzungen entstanden sind, trotz ihres grossen
geographischen Abstandes. Die für grosse
Teile Europas gemeinsamme Schwertform wäh-
rend Bz D und früher Ha A-Zeit ist, wie erwähnt,
das Griffzungenschwert von Cowens Nenzinger
Typ. Die Zunge ist sehr schwach ausgebuchtet,
ohne Fortsatz, aber oft mit kleinen Hörnern
versehen. Der Uebergang zwischen Heft und
Klinge ist weich und gerade. In Italien gibt es
mindestens 8 Exemplare, von denen die Mehr-
zahl in Mittelitalien liegt^®. Irgendwo in Mittel-
europa, vielleicht in Süddeutschland, entsteht
in der frühen Ha A-Periode eine Tendenz, diese
Schwerter mit einer blattförmigen Klinge aus-
zuformen, eine Tendenz, die im Norden während
Ha A nicht durchschlägt und die eine sehr
geringe Rolle in Mittelitalien gespielt zu haben
scheint. In Mitteleuropa entsteht derHemigko-
fener Typ (Abb. 8— 10), wovon man in Italien
nur schwache Spuren findet. Ein Schwert von
Montegiorgioy Ascoli-Piceno, in Mittelitalien ist
eine Variante dieses Typs (Montelius 1904, PI.
131,13; Rellini 1926, Nr. 64).
Für das Aussehen des Schwertes kann es
• Sprockhoff 1931, 21 ff. und 95 f Die restlichen zwei
Schwerter sind von Bevensen, Kr. Ülzen, Hannover und
vom Goplo-See, Polen.
1. Cherasco, Piemonte. Caprino 1942, Nr. 4. — 2.
Casale, Veneto, Battaglia 1958—59, Abb. 98 c. — 3—5.
Beiverde di Cetonoy Toscana, Caprino 1942, Nr. 13 — 15. —
6. Am Trasimenischen See^ Umbria, Rellini 1926, Nr. 74.
Hier Abb. 18. — 7. Sulmona, Abruzzi. Naue 1W3, Taf.
VII, 1. Hier Abb. 19. — 8. Poggio Berni, Forli, Emilia.
Hortfund, Ha A. Tosi, Bull, di Paletn. It. N.S. 3, 1939,
51 ff., Abb. 1, h, m.
49
Digitized by v^ooQle
keine Rolle gespielt haben, ob die Schwertzunge
einen Fortsatz hatte oder nicht. Die funktionelle
Aufgabe des Zungenfortsatzes war, dem Schwert-
knauf eine Stütze zu geben. Wenn auch den
meisten Schwertern ein solcher Fortsatz fehlt,
so hat man doch keinen Anlass, einen wesent-
lich anderen Knauf anzunehmen. Was dieses
Detail betrifft, so können die Schwerter in un-
beschädigtem Zustand durchaus gleichartig aus-
gesehen haben. Einen wesentlichen Unterschied
zwischen den Typen stellt indessen die kräftig
blattförmige Klinge, verglichen mit der geraden,
dar. Der Zungenfortsatz kann als eine tech-
nische Verbesserung für eine bessere Befestigung
des Schwertknaufes angesehen werden. Durch
Angabe einiger Ziffern kann gezeigt werden,
welche Rolle dieses Detail innerhalb der ver-
schiedenen Gebiete gespielt hat. Von den ca.
375 von Sprockhoff aufgeführten nordeuropäi-
schen Ha A-Schwertem mit Griffzunge haben
9 Zungenfortsatz, von den ca. 135 von Cowen
angegebenen Ha A-Schwertem mit Griffzunge aus
Mitteleuropa (einschliesslich zweier hier nicht
genannter Typen) haben 29 Zungenfortsatz und
von den in diesem Aufsatz aufgezählten ca. 20
italischen Ha A-Schwertem mit Griffzunge haben
9 (und eine Gussform) Zungenfortsatz.
Die mittelitalische Gmppe von Schwertern
mit Zungenfortsatz kann auf ähnliche Weise
wie die nordische betrachtet werden. Die Schwer-
ter mit gerader Klinge sind von lokaler Her-
stellung, während das Tiber-Schwert mit seiner
leicht geschwungenen Klinge am wahrschein-
lichsten ein mitteleuropäisches Produkt ist.
Cowen bUdet zwei fast gleiche Schwerter ab,
das eine aus Birsfelden bei Basel (hier Abb. 6)
und das andere aus Rouen (hier Abb. 7). Damit
kann man drei Gruppen von sehr gleichartigen
und nahe verwandten Schwertern unterscheiden:
1. Lettener Typ mit blattförmiger Klinge im
eigentlichen Verbreitungsgebiet des Erbenheimer
Typs in Mittel- und Westeuropa;
2. Die nordeuropäische Gmppe mit gerader
Klinge ausserhalb des eigentlichen Verbreitungs-
gebietes des Erbenheimer Typs;
50
3. Die mittelitalische Gmppe mit gerade
Klinge ausserhalb des eigentlichen Verbreitungs
gebietes des Erbenheimer Typs.
Der Erbenheimer Typ hat seinen Schwerpunl
am Rhein, vor allem im mittleren Teüe de
Flussgebietes^'. Von den 8 Exemplaren de
Lettener Typs mit bekanntem Fundort liege
drei in der Schweiz am obersten Lauf des Rheine
zwei in Süddeutschland, zwei in Frankreich a
der Seine und eines in Belgien. Die mitte
italischen Griffzungenschwerter mit Zungenfor
satz knüpfen über das mittlere Alpengebiet a
das obere Rheintal an. Die italische Gruppe voi
Nenzinger Typ gehört mit Mitteleuropa ii
weiteren Sinne zusammen.
Aus Griechenland ist noch eine kleine Gmpi
publiziert worden, die mit Erbenheim-Letu
in Zusammenhang steht. Drei Grifizunge
Schwerter von Kreta, eines von Patras auf d
Peloponnes und eines aus Phokis haben Zunge
fortsatz'*. Das Schwert von Anthea bei Patt
und mindestens eines der kretensischen Schwei
sind vom Lettener Typ (Abb. 20)“. Ausserdc
gibt es noch einige Schwerter vom Nenzinj
Typ sowie einige Bmchstücke von GrifTzimg«
Schwertern von nicht näher bestimmbare
Typ“. Einige Schwerter von Nenzinger T
sind, worauf Milojöic hingewiesen hat, etw
"CöwEN 1956, 77, Karte C. Es gibt noch ein p
weitere hierhergehörige Schwerter auf osteuropäisch
Gebiet, aber das KartenbUd wird nicht wesentlich \
ändert.
'• V. Milojöiö, Einige „mitteleuropäische'* Fremdlii
auf Kreta, Jahrb. d. Röm.-Germ. Zentralmus. Maim
1955, 159 fif., Abb. 3:1, 4 und 21. - N. Kyparis
Praktika 1938, 118 f. (Anthea bei Patras). — X. Tsoi
TAS, Ephemeris Arch. 1897, 110, Abb. 1 (Phokis).
“ S. A. Xanthoudides, Ephemeris Arch. 1904, 45 —
Abb. 11. — G. Maraghiannis, Antiquitds cr^oises
1912, PI. XXXV, 4.
“ H. W. Catung i956, 109 ff. - J. Naue, Die Brona
zeit in Oberbayem, 1894, Abb. 13 (Bruchstück
Korinth). — P. Reinecke 1931, 220 Anm. 12 (Ithaka).
Pendlebury, Brit. School at Athens, Ann. 38, 1937-
Pl. 29 No. 500 (Bruchstück aus Karphi auf Kreta).
Das Schwert von Kallithea, Catung 1956, 112, No
hat eine kleine Spitze zwischen den zwei Hörnem. B
hier nicht zu den Schwertern mit Zungefortsatz gerec^
worden. Abgebüdet von N. Yalourb, Ath. Mitteü.
1960 (1962), Beü. 31.
Digitized by v^ooQle
Abb. 20—21, Fundorte: Mouliana^ Kreta; Schiste, Phokis,
M. Nr, 20 ca, 1:3, Nr, 21 etwas kleiner als 1:2, Nr. 20 nach
Maraghiannis 1912, Nr, 21 nach Tsountas 1897.
zierlicher und leichter als die mitteleuropäischen.
Das kann darauf hindeuten, dass es sich dabei
um lokale Produkte handelt, die durch Ein-
flüsse von den mitteleuropäischen Formen her
entstanden sind. In diesem Zusammenhang ist es
ausreichend zu konstatieren, dass mindestens
zwei Griffzungenschwerter vom Lettener Typ
sind und dadurch nahe Verbindung mit Mittel-
europa bezeugen. Anscheinend sind sie in
Mitteleuropa hergestellt. Ein wahrscheinlich
lokal verfertigtes, nur 45 cm langes Schwert ist
bei Enkomi auf Cypem gefunden“.
Das zweite Schwert vom Tiber, Abb. 2 und 4,
kommt dem Erbenheimer Typ am nächsten. Es
imterscheidet sich von den ganz typischen
Schwertern dieses Typus durch eine geringere
Anzahl Nieten, durch die Ausbuchtung der
Zunge unterhalb der Mitte und durch die deut-
lichere U-Form des Heftes. Unter den von
Cowen abgebildeten Schwertern findet sich
nicht eines was in diesen Details mit dem Tiber-
Schwert übereinstimmt. Näher konunt das
Schwert aus Phokis mit kleiner Anzahl Nieten,
U-förmigem Heft und der etwas unterhalb der
Mitte ausbuchtenden Zunge (Abb. 21). Die
Klinge des griechischen Schwertes ist nicht
abgebUdet, wird jedoch im Text als gerade an-
gegeben“. Die Klinge unterscheidet sich hierin
vom Tiber-Schwert. Wo die beiden Schwerter
hergestellt sind, kann nicht entschieden werden.
Beide können lokale Produkte darstellen. Selbst
wenn sie aus lokalen Werkstätten herstammen,
so zeigen sic durch ihre Form eine innere Zu-
sammengehörigkeit und nahe Anknüpfung zum
Erbenheimer Typ in Mitteleuropa.
Die mittelitalische Gruppe von Griffzungen-
schwertem mit Zungenfortsatz liegt innerhalb
“ Catling 1956, 115, PI. XI, 1. Die Länge des Schwer-
tes wird S. 115 mit 45 cm angegeben, im Text zur Tafel
mit 42 cm.
H. Peake, The Bronze Age and the Celtic World,
1922, PI. XII, 3 bildet ein Schwert ab, das aus Levadeia,
Griechenland, herstammen soll. Der obere Teil des
Schwertes is genau gleich Tsountas 1897, 110, Abb. 1,
und die Klinge ist gerade. Es scheint eine Verwechslung
stattgefunden zu haben. Vgl. Catling 1956, 113, No. 10.
51
Digitized by LjOOQle
des zentralen Gebietes der apenninischen Kultur
während der „Protovillanova-Zeit”, und die
Schwerter vom Nenzinger Typ liegen teilweise
im gleichen Raum. Wie schon lange bekannt,
ist das italische Bronzehandwerk auf dem Fest-
land zu dieser 2^it in hohem Grade unselbstän-
dig und wird von mitteleuropäischen Vorbildern
geprägt. Zu den mitteleuropäischen Formen aus
derselben Zeit wie das Tiber-Schwert gehören
z. B. jüngere Violinbogenfibeln, Blattbügel-
fibeln, Grifizungenmesser vom Matreier Typ
und mittelständige LappenbeUe^^ Ohne genaue
Untersuchungen ist es unmögUch, in Italien ver-
fertigte Bronzegegenstände von importierten zu
unterscheiden. Solange solche Untersuchungen
nicht in grösserem Masstab ausgeführt worden
sind, fehlt es an Unterlagen für Theorien dar-
über, wie dieser starke mitteleuropäische Ein-
fluss zustandegekommen ist, ob er Völker-
wanderungen mit kriegerischen Eroberungen
oder friedliche Landnahme, die Tätigkeit wan-
dernder Metallgiesser, entwickelte Handelsver-
bindungen oder eine Kombination dieser Fak-
toren wiederspiegelt.
Auch in Griechenland gibt es eine Reihe von
Funden derselben Gegenstandstypen, die in
Italien als mitteleuropäisch bezeichnet worden
sind. Ueber sie ist eine lebhafte Diskussion
geführt und verschiedene UrsprungsmögUch-
keiten sind angegeben worden. Zumindest ein
Teil dieser Gegenstände ist seinem Ursprung
nach zweifellos mitteleuropäisch, während es
sich bei anderen um ägäische Umformungen
mitteleuropäischer Typen handelt**. Gewöhnlich
wird der Weg über den Balkan für diesen mittel-
europäischen Einfluss angeführt. Vor kurzem
wies Sp. Marinatos mit neueren Funden aus
dem Mittelmeerraum als Ausgangspunkt auf
einen anderen wichtigen Weg hin**. Er hebt
*^ H. Müller-Karpe, Beiträge zur Chronologie der
Urnenfelderzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen, 1959, 191,
Abb. 26.
*• Mnxuöie 1955, 153 ff.
*• Sp. Marinatos, The Minoan and Mycenaean Civi-
lization and its Influence on the Mediterranean and on
Europe. Atti del VI congresso intemazionale delle
52
Lipari mit sehr reichen Wohnplatzfunden als
Station auf dem Wege nach dem westlichen
Mittelmeer und nach Westeuropa hervor. Von
Lipari kommt num leicht nach Sardinien und
den Balearen oder nordwärts zum Golf von
Neapel. Esist sicher kein Zufall, sagt Marinatos,
dass man mykenische Spuren gerade auf Ischia
imd bei Vivara findet. MUojöic hat betont, dass
die auf Kreta gefundenen Peschiera-Dolche ihre
nächstverwandte Analogie in Norditalien haben.
Nach Marinatos erhält diese Beobachtung ihre
Erklärung durch den angegebenen Seeweg via
Ischia- Lipari— Griechenland**. Man muss aber
auch die Verbindung über Puglie beachten.
Auf dem Wohnplatz bei Scoglio del Tonno bei
Tarent wurden unter anderem spätmykenische
Vasenscherben, Bronzen in Typen vom östlichen
Mittelmeergebiet und Bronzen vom gleichen
mitteleuropäischen Typ gefunden, wie man ihn
in Griechenland findet**. Unter den Bronzen
war auch ein Peschiera-Dolch.
Die griechische Gruppe von Griffzungen-
schwertem mit Zungenfortsatz erhält auf Reiche
Weise ihre Erklärung, wenn man eine direkte
Seewegverbindung zwischen der mittelitalischen,
apenninischen Gruppe und hierdurch indirekt
mit dem Hauptgebiet des Typs im westlichen
Mitteleuropa annimmt. Ein auflallender Zug in
der Verbreitung der Schwertformen in der
Ha A-Zeit ist, dass die Vollgriffschwerter im
östlichen Mitteleuropa und die Griffzungen-
schwerter im westlichen Mitteleuropa domi-
nieren**. In Mittelitalien oder auf dem südlichen
Balkan sind keine Vollgriffschwerter vom Ha
A-Typ gefunden. Dieser Umstand gibt dem
westlichen Weg für die griechischen Griff-
zungenschwerter mit Zungenfortsatz eine noch
grössere Wahrscheinlichkeit. Hierdurch erhält
man auch eine Erklärung für die Ähnlichkeit
des Tiber-Schwertes Abb. 2 mit dem Schwert
scienze preistoriche e protoistoricbe, 1962, 161 ff.
••MiLOJÖie 1955, 158. - Marinatos 1962, 170.
** Müller-Karpe 1959, 30 ff., Taf. 13.
“H. Müller-Karpe, Die Vollgriffschwcrtcr der
Umenfelderzeit aus Bayern, 1961, 86 f., Karte 1 —4.
Digitized by LjOOQle
aus Phokis Abb. 21. Die erwähnten Messer vom
Matreier Typ, die in Griechenland nicht unge-
wöhnlich sind, haben die gleiche westliche Ver-
breitung. Nach Müller-Karpe kommen sie in
Bayern, Tirol, Schweiz und in Ober- und Mittel-
italien, aber nicht im östlichen Mitteleuropa vor**.
Hier geht cs nicht um die Frage, ob oder wie die
verschiedenen ägäischen Typen einschneidiger
Messer entstanden sind, ebensowenig wie es
sich früher um die Entstehung der frühesten
Grifizungenschwerter gehandelt hat.
Selbst wenn wir mit dem hier skizzierten Weg
des mitteleuropäischen Einflusses über Mittel-
Itafaen nach Griechenland rechnen können, so
spielt doch natürlich auch der nördliche Weg
über den Balkan nach Griechenland eine wich-
tige Rolle. Es war meine Absicht, auf eine
bisher wenig beachtete Möglichkeit hinzuweisen.
Die beiden Bronzeschwertcr vom Tiber gliedem
«Müller-Karpe 1961, 41. - Vgl. N. K. Sandars,
The Antiquity of the One-edged Bronze Knife in the
Acgcan, Proc. of the Prehist. Soc. N.S. XXI, 1955, 174 ff.
sich daher in einen wichtigen Zusammenhang
ein. Mit dem Ausgangspunkt von verschiedenen
Varianten von Griffzungensch wertem mit Zung-
enfortsatz erhält man eine Andeutung eines
Einflusses vom westlichen Mitteleuropa über
die Alpen nach Mittelitalien und von dort
weiter über die westliche Küste Mittelitaliens
oder über Puglie auf dem Seewege nach Grie-
chenland. Die west-mitteleuropäischen Impulse
erreichen gleichzeitig den Norden und spiegeln
sich in Mittelschweden im Schwerte von Stora
Mellösa wieder. Ein Grabfund aus Hovby in
Schonen, der einen cyprischen Griflangeldolch
mit geraden Schultern und mit durchlochter
Angel, einen Peschiera-Dolch, ein nordisches
Miniaturmesser und eine nordische Fibel aus
der frühen Periode III der nordischen Bronze-
zeit enthielt, deutet denselben Weg zwischen
dem östlichen Mittelmeer und Nordeuropa an“.
“O. Monteuus, Minnen frän vär fomtid, 1917, Abb.
885, 886, 922, 1024. — E. Sprockhoff, Ein Peschiera-
dolch aus Nic^ersachsen, Germania 20, 1936, Taf. 33,2.
Digitized by v^ooQle
53
A Black-Figured Neck-Amphora of the
Leagros Group
TULLIA RÖNNE-LINDERS
The vase here publishcdS Figs. 1-7,20,21,
which was presentcd to Medelhavsmuseet by His
Majesty the King, was acquired in Rome, in 1961 .
Nothing was then known of its provenance. In
shape it is a neck-amphora, the height being
0.408 m. It is unbroken and vcry well preserved,
except for slight dents in the suiface in places.
There is no repainting.
As will bc explained below, this is ABV^ p. 374,
no. 197.
A. Apollo in a chariot drawn by four horses,
accompanied by Artemis and Hermes.
A young man Stands in a light chariot with
two whcels (of which one only is seen) drawn by
four horses, holding the reins of the horses. His
head overlaps into the tongue-pattem above the
picture. He has a short beard, is dressed in a
himation and wears a fillet round his head. The
^ Inv. no. MM 1962:7. My thanks arc duc to Dr. O.
Vessber^ Director of Medelhavsmuseet, for permission
to publish this vase. 1 have also to thank the Staatliche
Museen, Antikenabteilung, West-Berlin, the British Mu-
seum, Department of Gmk and Roman Antiquities,
London, the Direktion der Antikensanunlungen, Munich,
II Soprintendente alle Antichitä, Naples, the Royal On-
tario Museum, Toronto, and the Martin von Wagner
Museum, Würzburg, which sent photographs of their
vases and allowed me to publish them, and Sir John
Beazley for Information conceming the Stockholm vase.
54
horses have all four hooves on the ground, yet
give the Impression of moving. They bend their
heads in various ways so that three of them are
clearly seen, while the ear is all that shows of the
fourth, behind the head of the third. On the
further side of the horses a woman tums to-
wards the charioteer, lifting her right hand in a
gesture of sorrow or greeting. She wears a long
Chiton and a mantle over her shoulders, a fillet
is tied round her head. At the horses’ heads and
half-hidden by them Hermes walks to the right
but tums round looking at the charioteer. He is
dressed, in the usual way, in a short chiton,
cloak, winged boots tied with String, and a
peaked petasos; his long plait of hair is tied up
by means of a ribbon. The head of Hermes cuts
into the palmette of the handle-omament.-
Undemeath the horses a small deer grazes.
Neither the charioteer nor the wonum have any
attributes to identify them with certainty. Since,
however, the deer is an animal sacred to Artemis,
it seems most likely that the woman is to be
identified with her. The man to whom she bids
farewell is then most probably her brother,
Apollo. — In fact, the deer is also his sacred
animal so that this too points to Apollo as the
charioteer; again, the woman is Artemis (or
possibly his mother). One notes that the similar
Digitized by v^ooQle
Fig. 1. Neck-amphora, Medelhavs-
museet, Stockholm, MM 1962:7.
sccnes refcrred to below, arc all taken from the
sphere of the gods and heroes.
There is red in ApoUo’s beard and fillet and
on Artemis’s fillet; Apollo’s himation is de-
corated with red dots and Hermes’s cloak with
red borders; further, there are red strokes along
the horses" manes and tails.
White was used for the face of Artemis, but
this has for the most part faded.
B. Dionysus and Ariadne with two Satyrs.
Dionysus is seated on a folding-chair with
animals’ feet, with Ariadne on his hither side.
Both are dressed in long chitons and big mantles
and wear wreaths of ivy; Dionysus has a long
beard. He holds the kantharos in his left hand,
the vine in his right (though this is not rendered
in a wholly clear manner). At either side of
them, a Satyr prances; both dance away from
them but turn round and look at them. The Satyr
to the right shouts or sings (his mouth is half
open); he wears a panther’s skin knotted around
his Shoulders, the panther’s head showing above
55
Digitized by v^ooQle
Fig. 3. MM 1962:7,
Fig, 4 . MM 1962:7,
bis left Shoulder. The vine, with bunches of grapes,
spreads out at both sides in the background of
the picture.
Since the woman is crowned with ivy and is
accompanied by Satyrs, she is more probably
Ariadne than, for instance, Semele (cf. ÄBV^
p. 374, no. 197).
Incision is used for the stars decorating the
garments of Dionysus and Ariadne and for the
short strokes on the panther’s skin.
Red is used in the hair and beards of the male
figures and for the decorative dots and borders
of the garments; further for the tenons of the
chair.
White was used for the face, hands, and feet
Fig. 2, MM 1962:7,
of Ariadne. This has mostly faded so that her
figure is now a iittie difficuit to distinguish.
Further decoration: On the neck, a lotus-and-
palmette-omament with much incision and red
detail. On the shoulder, a tongue-pattern with
altemating black and red tongues; a break is
made in it under each handle, i. e. it was painted
after the handles were attached. Below the
handles, a scroll of conventional type, painted
without incision. This was evidently painted
after the pictures. It is indicated for instance by
the manner in which Hermes conceals part of
it (Figs. 3, 6); further (Figs. 4, 5), by the fact that
the palmette, on the other side of the vase, makes
allowances for the wheel of the chariot, and,
especially, by another feature of the same scroll.
Thus, the upper right hand palmette shows
57
Digitized by v^ooQle
only the tip of a tendril, above the shoulder of
the chariotcer, as if the rest wcre hidden behind
him. This is, however, done so that it clearly
Shows that the charioteer was thcre before the
scroU and that the artist had to take it into
account.
Below the hgure zone, which is bordered
underneath by a black line, forming a ground
line for the figures, there is a chain of lotus
buds, with dots, and below that, a zone of rays.
The foot is black, except for the ridge and a
narrow band at the bottom. The lip of the vase
is also black, inside and out, except for the
upper side. The inside of the vase is black as far
down as the shoulder. The triple handles are
painted black on the outside.
The black paint has smeared in places, e.g.
on one of the handle-ornaments and on the
vine on B; there is further a blot of black paint
on A, below the horses’ reins.
The black glaze has misfired and tumed into
red on A on the right-hand Satyr and handle,
and on B on Hermes and in a large area on and
around the other handle (where it shows on the
photographs).
On the underside of the foot there are two
grafliti, an arrow-like shape and another which
is probably a ligature of A and ff; see Fig. 21.
It is at once clear that the vase here published,
although made by very competent and skilful
craftsmen, is not the work of any of the great
artists. Further, its style shows it to belong to
the later Black-figure,. towards the end of the
sixth Century. The dosest stylistic afBnities are
found within the Leagros Group* and, morc
espedally, among those vases which J. D, Beaz-
ley has assembled under the name of the Group
of Würzburg 210*. The question arises whether
this vase, the previous fortunes of which are un-
known, is not identical with the ncck-amphora
listed by Beazley in ABV, p. 374 as no. 197 of
• Beazley, ABV, pp. 354 ff., where refercnces to the ear-
lier literature are given. Cf. also Rumpf, Malerei u.
Zeichn., p. 77 with note 2.
» Pp. 354, 357 f.
58
the Leagros Group. It has the caption ''Roman
Market’’ and is defined as being "near the Group
of Würzburg 210”; the description, although
not quite complete, seems to point to this.
Sir John Beazley has kindly confirmed by letter
that it "is indeed the samc vase”. Thus, the
present study wiU not bring forward much that
is new. 1 take the opportunity, however, to
discuss a little known group of vases, some of
which have never been reproduced before, and
to Show, I hope, that the neck-amphora now in
Stockholm, is not mercly "near the Group of
Würzburg 210”, but a proper member of it.
The Group of Würzburg 210 comprises four-
teen vases. The majority are neck-amphorae, like
the one here published, two are Panathenaic
in shape. On four of them, namely Würzburg 210
and 214*, Toronto 927.39.3* and London B 206
(Panathenaic)*, Figs. 8, 10— 12, the motif on the
main side is a god or hero setting out in a chariot,
accompanied by other mythical figures. On the
first of these vases the charioteer is Herakles
with lolaos beside him, on the others Dionysus,
in one case, on the Toronto vase, with Ariadne
at his side.— ln general, the composition is
strikingly similar to that of the corresponding
picture on our vase. Further, the general render-
ing as well as many details of the latter vase are
identical with those of the others. Thus, the
charioteers on the five vases, whether they re-
present lolaos and Herakles, Dionysus and
Ariadne, or Apollo, have exactly the same
stance and drapery; the horses correspond
closely in the rendering of anatomical details and
in their bearing (note espedally the heads).
Hermes on the Stockholm vase recurs almost
exactly on the one in Toronto. The deer present
in two of the pictures, beside our own, are all
very like each other.
* ABV, p. 373, DOS. 178, 179, Lanolotz, Griech. Vasen
in Würzburg, pls. 52 and 58; our Figs. 8 — 10.
* ABV, p. 373, no. 180, Robinson and Harcum, Cat. of
Greek Vases in the Royal Ontario Mus. of Arch., Toronto,
no. 306, pl. 41, our Fig. 11.
* ABV, p. 369, no. 120, CV British Mus. 4, III He pl. 46,
our Figs. 12—13.
Digitized by LjOOQle
Ftg. 9. Würzburg, Martin von Wagner Museum, neck-
amphora K 2 JO,
Fig, 8, Würzburg, Martin von Wagner Museum, neck-
amphora K 210,
Fig. 10. Würzburg, Martin von Wagner Museum, neck
amphora K 214.
Fig. 11. Toronto, Royal Ontario Museum, neck-
amphora 927.39.3.
Digitized by
The second picture on the Stockholm vase,
Dionysus Holding kantharos and vine, with
Ariadne, flanked by two Satyrs, recurs in a
similar form on two of the vases just described,
Würzburg 210 and London B 206, Figs. 9 and
13. On the latter, Dionysus and Ariadne sit side
by side on a folding-chair, as on our vase, while
the Satyrs and Maenads dance along. On Würz-
burg 210, however, Dionysus Stands upright
between two Satyrs, with a man-headed goat at
his side. This motif of the god Standing motion-
less between Satyrs, or Satyrs and Maenads,
is further represented on five other vases of the
group, namely the neck-amphorae Berlin F 1845%
Fig. 15, Munich 1568®, Fig. 16, Vogell 61%
New York 41.162.179^® and the Panathenaic
amphora Munich SL 459“, Fig. 19. In spite of
the difference in Dionysus’s position, the resem-
blance to our picture is apparent in the compo-
sition, the stance of the figures, the drapery,
and a number of details. Note, for instance,
the Satyrs. Those of Munich 1568, and still
more those on the New York vase, are extremely
like the Stockholm Satyrs.
These pictures are further closely intercon-
nected by other details. Thus, the goat on Würz-
burg 210 is also found on the Vogell and on the
New York vase and on Munich SL 459. On
these four vases and on the one in Berlin,
Dionysus holds the vine, which spreads to both
sides in a decorative way. In most other pictures
of this group, including our own, Dionysus
does in fact hold the vine, although the design
does not give as decorative and pleasing an
effect.
The four neck-amphorae which Beazley “com-
’ ABV, p. 370, no. 136, our Figs. 14-15.
• ABV, p. 371, no. 145, our Fig. 16.
* ABV, p. 372, no. 155. Gerhard, Auserlesene griech.
VasenbUder, pl. 32; [Boehlau] Griech. Altertüiner aus
dem Besitze d» Herrn A. Vogell, Karlsruhe: Cassel 26—
30 Mai 1908, pl. 2,8.
“ABV, p. 373, no. 174, Gaz. Arch. 1875, pl. 29, CV
Gallatin Coli., pl. 38,2.
“ABV, p. 369, no. 121. Sieveking, Bronzen, Terra-
kotten, Vasen der Samnü. Loeb, pl. 40; our Figs. 18 — 19.
pares” with the Group of Würzburg 210“ and
to which he adds our vase as a fifth, all have
similar scenes in which Dionysus is the centre.
The similarities in composition, stance, drapery,
etc., between them and those around Würzburg
210, are apparent. In fact it is easier to define the
conunon features than to explain the differences,
although these too are apparent. The four vases
are, moreover, not all connected with the main
Group of Würzburg 210 in exactlythe same way.
Two, Villa Giulia M. 486 and Vatican 393, seem
to me to be closer to each other than to the
rest. On both, the outlines are less distinct
than on the vases just discussed. Compare, for
instance, the goats in both pictures“; if set side
by side with the rather magnificent goats on
Würzburg 210, Munich SL 459 (Figs. 9 and 19)
and New York 41.162.179“, it is at once clear
that the quality of the first two is inferior and
that they are very alike. — It is further evident
that the Stockholm vase does not resemble
these, nor in fact the other two.
Of the other two, Naples Stg. 148, Fig. 17, is
said by Beazley to “recall the Group of Würz-
burg 210 and the Acheloos Painter”“, while
about the other, Villa Giulia 50619, he says
*‘B is very like the Acheloos Painter, A recalls
the Group of Würzburg 210”“. An example of
these Connections with the Acheloos Painter is
the picture of revellers on the latter vase. It
recalls, for instance, the komos by the Acheloos
Painter on an amphora in New York“.
“Naples Stg. 148, ABV, p. 371, no. 141, our Fig. 17.
Vüla Giulia (M. 486), ABV, p. 373, no. 184, Minoazzini,
Vasi della CoU. Castellani, no. 486, pl. 77,2 (wrongly given
as 77,1 in the tcxt), pls. 69,4 and 71,3 (A). Vatican 393,
ABV, p. 374, no. 191, Mus. ctr. Greg. 2, pl. 35,2; Albiz-
ZATi, Vasi ant. dipinti del Vaticano, fase. 6, pl. 56. Villa
Giulia 50619, ABV 374, no. 193, Minoazzini, op. cit., no.
497, pls. 77,1 (wrongly given in the text as 67,1) and 74,8
(komos).
“ Minoazzini, pl. 77,2 and albizzati, pl. 56.
“ See above, note 10.
“ABV, p. 371, no. 141.
“ ABV, p. 374, no. 193.
Kevorkian Coli. ABV, p. 383, no. 10, Beazley,
Development of Attic B.-f., pl. 43,1, Cat. Christie March
26 1953, pl. 2.
61
Digitized by LjOOQle
Fig. 12. British Museum, Panathenaic amphora B 206.
Fig. 13. British Museum, Panathenaic amphora B 206.
Fig. 14. West-Berlin, Staatliche Museen, neck-amphora
F 1845.
Fig. 15. West-Berlin, Staatliche Museen, neck-amphora
F 1845.
This brings up the question of the Connections
between this vase-painter“ and the Group of
Würzburg 210. In fact, two of the vases dis-
cussed earlier, belonging to the main group, are
still nearer the Acheloos Painter, namely the
neck-amphora Berlin 1845 and the Panathenaic
Munich SL 459, Figs. 14-15, 18-19. On both,
Herakles is represented on the main side be-
tween Athena and Hermes, about to mount a
platform holding a kithara, while on the other
side Dionysus Stands in the midst of his followers.
** For the works of the Acheloos Painter, see ABV, pp.
354, 382 ff., with references.
62
According to Beazley, the latter was made by
the Acheloos Painter himself, while the former
is “near” him'*. Certainly the Munich Panathe-
naic is a very fine work, finer than the other
vases in the group— the difference is, however,
only slight— and finer than its companion in
Berlin, although this too is of high quality. The
resemblance to the works of the Acheloos
Painter is borne out for instance by his amphora
Louvre F 272*®, which has the same motif. On
the other hand, the scenes with Dionysus on
»• ABV, p. 369, no. 121 and p. 370, no. 136.
ABV, p. 383, no. 6, CV Louvre 5, III Hc pl. 56,4.
Digitized by v^ooQle
Fig. 16, Munich, Museum antiker Kleinkunst, neck- Fig. 17. Naples, Museo Nazionale, neck-amphora Sant-
amphora 1568. angelo 148.
Fig. 18. Munich, Museum antiker Kleinkunst, Pan- Fig. 19. Munich, Museum antiker Kleinkunst, Pan-
athenaic amphora SL 459. athenaic amphora SL 459.
63
Digitized by v^ooQle
the Munich and Berlin vases are not to be
separated from the other works in the Group
of Würzburg 210, in the same way as Naples
Stg. 148 and Villa Giulia S0619, mentioned
above, recall this group. The fact is that, if
one goes through the works of the Acheloos
Painter, the general resemblance between them^
and those of our group is striking. It may be
that the figures of the latter are in general a
little less vigorous and fleshy than those of the
Acheloos Painter. If one compares the pictures
with revellers of, or like, him, mentioned above,
with the same motif on New York 41.162.179“,
one may perceive something of this; in any
case, the rendering of the folds seems not quite
so voluminous. It should be stressed, however,
that the difference is very small. Further, the
most characteristic works of the Acheloos Pain-
ter Show a drastic sense of humour and a
boisterousness“ which the pictures of our group
seem to lack. On the other hand, many of his
works lack these features just as much as do
those of our group. Thus, through all this
Beazley’s words are bome out, “The fact is that
the two groups are sometimes indistinguish-
able”».
Indeed, it seems easier to define the difference
between them in terms of subject than of style.
Characteristic motifs of the Acheloos Painter
are the exploits of Herakles, and revellers,
while Dionysus is the favourite subject of the
Group of WUrzburg 210. It is probably also
typical that, when the subjects of the formet, for
instance Herakles playing the kithara, or re-
vellers, are found on works of our group, then
the resemblance between the groups is especially
evident. — One may ask oneself whether the
pictures of Dionysus and those that go with
them were painted by an artist, or artists, who
had studied the style of the Acheloos Painter so
closely as to be almost indistinguishable from
“ See above, notc 10.
“ Cf. c.g. Beazley, Development p. 86.
“ABV, p. 369, no. 121.
him; or whether the Acheloos Painter made
them himself, but at those moments when he
was not quite at his highest level.
Be that as it may, the neck-amphora of Medd-
havsmuseet 1962:7 is a characteristic work o
the Group of WUrzburg 210, its nearest com-
panions being the two neck-amphorae in Würz-
burg, the one in Toronto, and the Panathenaic
amphora in London.
The shape of the vase Medelhavsmuseet 1%2:7
is a neck-amphora of Standard type, with
comparatively straight shoulders and body
tapering to a narrow base (Fig. 20). Its general
type points to the late sixth Century and may
be compared, roughly, with Richiier & Milne.
Shapes and names of Athenian vases, Fig. 14,
and Caskey, Geometry of Greek vases, nos. 10
and 11“.
“ The neck-amphora Richter and Milne Fig. 14, dated
to the end of the sixth Century, is a little more slender than
our vase. Caskey nos. 10 and 1 1 have more similar pro-
portions; no. 11, Boston 89.258, is a work of the Anii-
menes Painter, Beazley, ABV p. 276 no. S (above), and
thus roughly Contemporary with our vase.
64
Digitized by v^ooQle
Fig. 21. Medelhavsmuseet 1962:7, graffiti.
Fig. 22, Naples, Museo Nazionale, Santangelo 148,
graffiti.
The development of the neck-amphora, as
well as of the amphora and the hydria, in the
late sixth Century has been traced by Hansjörg
Bloesch“. He summarizes the development
down to ca. 510 as a tendency to change stout
forms into slender ones; at that time a renewed
preference for stoutness arises which is again
followed by a tendency towards lighter and more
refined forms. He further isolates the works of
three individual potters or groups of potters
among the late Archaic neck-amphorae, in the
main through the characteristic shapes of the
feet and lips of the vases, namely the Group of
Lea-neck-amphorae, the Club-foot Potter and
the Canoe Potter.
The shapes of pots can only be studied with
Profit on the pots themselves or from drawings
and photographs taken so as to render the shape
“JHS71 1951 pp. 29 ff.
without distortions**. The material of this sort
available to me is slight, yet it seems to me that
the Stockholm vase is not to be attributed to
any of these potters. Thus, the Club-foot Potter
is excluded on account of the different feet of
his vases. This is interesting since the name-
piece of our group, Würzburg 210, is one of
his works*’. Further, the Lea-neck-amphorae,
and those of the Canoe Potter, although they
have more in common with our vase, yet differ
too much in shapes and profiles. It is to be
noted that Würzburg 214, another member of
our group, is attributed to the Lea-neck-am-
phorae**. It is probably significant that the
•• The requirements are defined by Bloesch, op. cit. p.
29 notc 2.
Bloesch, p. 38 and p. 33, Fig. 17 (profiles).
•• The Lea-neck-amphorae, Bloesch, p. 38, with exam-
ples of profiles, p. 33, Fig. 16. The Canoe Potter, p. 38,
with typical profiles, p. 33, Figs. 18—20, and shapes, pl.
19 d, e, f.
Digitized by LjOOQle
65
Stockholm vase, as regards the shape, has more
in common with the vases placed at the be-
ginning of the three groups than with the later
ones**. Further, the foot and, to some extent
the lip, has a counterpart in, for instance, the
neck-amphora Munich 1486, dated around 510
B.C., which in its tum is very like Munich
1480 A, in this respect, of the preceding decade*®.
I would suggest that the potter of the Stockholm
neck-amphora used forms like these as his
models'; he varied them a little but in a more
moderate way than the potters studied by
Bloesch.
It has already been noted that two of the
vases of the Group of Würzburg 210 have been
identified as the works of two different potters.
Even if my theory conceming the Stockholm
vase should be wrong— so that it belongs to,
let US say, the Lea-neck-amphorae*^ — one must
admit the possibility that one or more of the
unattributed members is the work of some
other potter. Thus, the vases of the Group of
Würzburg 210, so few and so closely inter-
connected, were made by at least two potters,
probably three and more. While our knowledge
of the vase-paintings and their artists has been
brought nearly to perfection in later years, we
know far less about the potters. A study of
their work and of the co-operation between
them and the painters would be of great
interest”.
The graffiti on the underside of the vase (Fig.
21) are carelessly drawn: one notes that in the
ligature the Stylus has slipped; they were probably
engraved after firing. Both figures found on the
•• Cf. c.g. WUrzburg 214, no. 1 of the Lea-neck-am-
phorae, Würzburg 210, no. 2 of theClub-foot Potter, and
London B 220, no. 1 of the Canoe Potter, CV British Mus.
4, III He pl. 53,4, Bloesch, pl. 19 d.
•® Bloesch, p. 37; the profiles of Munich 1486 are seen
on p. 33, Fig. 15, and those of Munich 1480A on Fig. 13.
” The Club-foot Potter seems to be excluded, on ac-
count of the widely different profiles of his feet.
“ This has often been stressed, see e.g. Bloesch, op. cit.
p. 29.— An interesting picture of the work in an Athenian
pottery is given by Bei^ey in Potter and painter in ancient
Athens, pp. 25 ff
Stockholm vase occur also on two other vases
of the Group of Würzburg 210, namely the
neck-amphorae Naples Stg. 148 (Fig. 22) and
Würzburg 214”. They have been discussed by
Hackt in Merkantile Inschriften auf attischen
Vasen, who lists thirty-six instances of the ligature
and twenty-one of the “arrow””; the latter is in
every case but one combined with the ligature.
Hackt put forward the theory that the ligatures
and other signs, of the same type as on our
vase, were in general made by, or on behalf of,
the traders. He suggested that they were usually
put on one vase in every ordered tot, to serve as
a reminder for the maker, or as a sort of address.
A certain number of the marks may further
have been made by the potter, for his own or his
colleagues' benefit”.
While there seems no groimd to doubt that
Hackfs theories are essentially correct, a
renewed study of the graffiti would probably
add much of interest. Thus, the material now
available is more extensive; the chronology of
the Attic vases is securely established, through
the study of the vase-paintings; our knowledge
of ancient industry and trade has increased.
Through all this a comprehensive study of the
graffiti would probably be more profitable now
than it was at the beginning of the Century.
Greek vases are in fact-beside their importance
for the history of art — a source of information
about practices in industry and trade, probably
also about social and economic conditions in
the ancient world.
” The ^aifiti of Würzburg 214 arc illustrated in Lang-
LOTz, Griech. Vasen in Würzburg, p. 174. — Three more
vases of this group have graffiti of a different shape, namely
Würzburg 210, Lanolotz, p. 174, Berlin F 1M5, Furt-
wÄNOLER, Beschr. der Vasensaniml. im Antiquarium,
pl. 1, and Munich SL 459, a carelessly engraved alpba
(information from the museum).
”Hackrs work was published in Münchener aicb.
Studien dem Andenken Adolf Furtwänglers gewidmet, in
1909. The graffiti here discussed are listed on pp. 39 f. and
46 f., the Würzburg vase under nos. 393 and 526, the Na-
ples vase, possibly, imder 402 and 532. (WÜrzburg 210 is
no. 508 and Berlin 1845 no. 509.)
” Op. cit., pp. 94 f. A summary is given by Richter,
Attic red-fig. vases, pp. 19 ff.
66
Digitized by LjOOQle
A Republican Portrait from the Sabina
OLOF VESSBERG
The portrait that is reproduced in Figures 1 — 3,
a gift to Medelhavsmuseet from His Majesty the
King, was bought in Rome in November 1960.
It arrived in Stockholm in February 1961 and
its accession number is MM 1961:2.
The portrait is executed in a white, fine-crys-
talline, very hard marble, presumably Grecian.
It has a narrow portion of the bust and was
probably inserted in a Statue^. Naturally it is
also conceivable that it was mounted as a bust
also in classical times. Its height is 32 cm. This
head is extraordinarily well preserved and has
only a few minor injuries: the nose-tip is missing
as well as pieces of the Shells of the ears, especi-
ally in the case of the right ear. While the surface
of the left half of the face is quite fresh, the
right side is slightly abraded by water or sand
erosion.
The portrait represents what one would call
a true Roman, depicted in the unadomed man-
ner that was fashionable in Roman portraiture
in the time of Pompey and Caesar. It is the
image of an elderly but still vigorous man with
^ Such small busts with rather unevenly hewn rims are
common during the last Century B.C. Of. O. Vessberg,
Studien zur Kunstgeschichte der römischen Republik,
Taf. LVI:2, LX, LXX:2, LXXXIV:!, 2, LXXXVI.
grim features which nevertheless leave room for
a certain good-naturedness. The face is lean with
strong jaws and prominent cheek-bones. The
mouth with the thin, tight lips is framed by
deep furrows. The nose, unusually well pre-
served despite the missing tip, is broad and
fleshy, and has a sweUing at the side of the left
nostril. The eyes are overhung by shaggy, jutting
eyebrows curving outwards. The wrinkles of the
forehead are carefully noted and the V-shaped
vein in the middle of the brow makes an effective
crown-piece to the architecture of the head.
Realistically rendered are also the veins at the
temple. A bunch of wrinkles radiales from the
comers of the eyes and two long, parallel
wrinkles define the cheek in relation to the ear.
The neck is scraggy with several horizontal
wrinkles and sharply marked tendons. The hair
is faintly marked like a hood, which only just
rises above the skin of the face. The surface of
the hair is roughly carved with shallow chisel
cuts and grooves. Here it is quite clear that the
hair must have been painted.
This is, as we see, a face depicted with great
realism in detail, but the details are put together
with the firm intention of giving a synthesis of
the Personality. Indeed, he comes to us life-like
and very much alive, this grim old man with a
67
Digitized by v^ooQle
glint of goodness and humour in the slightly
screwcd-up eyes. Now what is his time?
To begin with, it is easy to see where his
dosest stylistic counterparts are. Among many
possibilities I will mention as particularly strik-
ing examples the foUowing: two busts in the
Museo Nazionale in Naples*, two heads in the
Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek in Copenhagen*, one
portrait head, probably from a tomb relief, in
the Museo Nuovo in Rome^ (Fig. 4), one head
from Palestrina in the Museo delle Terme in
Rome^, and one head from a tomb relief in the
Villa Colonna in Rome* (Fig. 5). These are exam-
ples of Late Republican verism in its original
form. For the broad structure of the face with the
powerful jaws the two busts in Naples provide
particularly good parallels. Note the drawing of
the wrinkles on the head in Glyptoteket 561
(espedally of the furrows in the cheek) and on the
head from Palestrina in the Museo delle Terme,
and compare particularly the treatment of the
hair on the Glyptoteket head 564: “flat hood,
whose details would be rendered by painting” (F.
Poulsen). This hair type in the form of a hood
with the hair almost graphically sketched, is very
characteristicof Late Republican portraiture and
indicates that painting was a fundamental element
in these portraits.
The above-dted parallels to the Medelhavs-
museet’s most reccnt portrait acquisition are
Late Republican works from the closing decades
of the Republic. The two portrait busts in
* A. Ruesch, Guida illustrata del Museo Nazionale
di Napoli, No. 1104; Vessbero, Studien, Taf. LX111:2
and 3— 4.
* F. Poulsen, Katalog over antike skulpturer, Nos. 561
and 564; V. Poulsen, Les portraits Romains 1 (Public-
ations de la Glyptoth^ue Ny Carlsberg No. 7), Nos. 20
and 22; Vessbero, Studien, Taf. LXVII:l-2, 3-4.
* H. Stuart Jones, The Sculptures of the Palazzo dei
Conservatori, p. 233, No. 17; D. Mustilli, II Museo
Mussolini, p. 5, No. 5; Vessbero, Studien, Taf. LXIX.
* B. M. Felletti Maj, Museo Nazionale Romano,
I Ritratti, No. 59; Vessbero, Studien, Taf. LXXXII:4;
E. Buschor, Das hellenistische Bildnis, p. 63.
•Fr. Matz— F. v. Duhn, Antike Bildwerke in Rom
mit Ausschluss der grösseren Sammlungen, No. 3816;
Vessbero, Studien, Taf. XXXVIII: 1.
68
Naples represent an eariier group characterized
by a less rigid modelling, a less emphasized bony
framework and a strong link with the purely
Hellenistic line in Contemporary portrait art,
while the two heads 561 and 564 in the Glyptotek
in Copenhagen belong to a later line of evoludon
that is characterized by a drier and somehow
harder verism. It is to this line that our portrait
belongs.
The portrait stems from the Sabina. It was o
interest to us to clarify its provenance, and Axel
Boethius— who first saw the head in Rome— and
the author of these lines made a little trip to-
gether in the autumn of 1961 to the eariier home
of the portrait, the little town of Montopoli di
Sabina. We could there verify the facts given
by the art-dealer in Rome about the place where
the head had been kept before he acquired it
It had previously been located in a villino outside
Montopoli, built in 1831 and belonging to the
Torlonia family. There, together with other
heads, it had stood on the balustrade of a
terrace. Socles and postaments for the heads
still exist and metal rods for fixing them. But
the heads themselves were removed after an
attempted theft about fifteen or twenty years ago.
The terrace borders the road and was passed by
the peasants from Montopoli when they went
out to their fields. Legends seem to have grown
up roimd the heads. An octogenarian in Monto-
poli relates that // co/vo, as he called our portrait,
represented un gran signore^ govematore della
Sabina, who was surrounded by il suo consiglki ^ .
Thus, the head stood for a long time in this
Position and may perhaps have been part of the
original decoration of the house. After the
attempted theft the head was kept inside the
^ For information I am grateful to Axel Boöthius,
who on a subsequent visit to Montopoli di &bina
leamed more about the eariier history of our head.
Fig, /. Roman male portrait, MM 1961:2, Medelhavs'
museet, Stockholm,
Digitized by LjOOQle
Fig. 2. MM 1961:2. Fig. 3. MM 1961:2.
villino in the care of one of the two families who
live in the house and it was sold by this family
to the Roman art-dealer from whom it passed
into the possession of our Museum. Of the
other sculptures that were on the terrace before
the attempted theft, there remain two herms,
which are still kept inside the house^.
Naturally, there is much to suggest that the
portrait was found in this district. It is a natural
find-site for a work of this kind. The veristic
Late Republican portraiture has in Italy a very
uniform distribution throughout Latium and
Etruria, while in the rest of the country, espe-
cially in the south of Italy, its occurrence is rare.
A group of portrait statues in Chiusi provide
some parallels, locally quite dose*, and they also
• Greek portrait types with prototypes from the 4th
Century B.C., perhaps from the libraiy of some Roman
Villa in the Sabine Mountains (A. Boethius).
• Vessberg, Studien, Taf. LXXXV.
70
give certain suggestions with regard to the dating.
For judging by the toga types they are from
the time of transition to the Imperial sculpture
and at all events belong to the second half of
the last Century
The most striking parallel, however, is the
above-mentioned portrait on a relief in the Villa
Colonna in Rome. This relief is made up of
two parts, one comprising two portrait busts, a
woman named Manlia Rufa and a man, Manlius
Stephanus, the other consisting of the bust of an
elderly man without inscription. This latter por-
trait comes remarkably dose to our head. The
powerful structure of the head with the empha-
sized breadth across the cheek-bones, which
gives the face an almost Mongol look, is the
O.C., pp. 240 f.
Digitized by v^ooQle
same in both. We may further compare the
form of the mouth with the enclosing curved
fuiTOws and the powerfully marked jaws, the
naiTOw and quite small eyes with thin lids
overhung by strong brows, the arrangement of
the hair in a thin hood with roughly hewn
surface. The strongly marked wrinkles of the
neck are also a feature common to both portraits,
which is particularly characteristic of the style
of the time.
1 have earlier dated the portrait in the Villa
Colonna to c. 40 The basis of the chrono-
logical System lies at this time to an exceptional
degree in the coin-types. They show that the
Late Republican realism in portraiture reaches
its height in the middle of the Century, particular
Support for this being provided by the coin-
types of Postumius Albinus^*, Antius Restio^^
Pompey'^ and Caesar^*. With regard to the first
three of these, one has to reckon with an interval
between the time of the original prototype and
that of the coin-type which may, at most, run to
three or four decades^®. Consequently, the
portraits of Caesar are of paramount impor-
tance. A large group of these constitute the
first example of Roman coin portraits that are
not posthumous, and where on the whole there
is identity of time between the original proto-
type and the coin-type. They provide the reliable
evidence for the development of Caesar’s por-
trait from the last year of his life and the decades
immediately after his death. They not only
reflect the changed opinion about Caesar but
also the stylistic evolution in the important
period, also from the art historian’s point of view,
“ Vessberg, Studien, pp. 198 ff.
H. A. Grueber, Coins of the Roman Republic in
the British Museum I, pp. 507 ff.; E. A. Sydenham, The
Coinage of the Roman Republic, p. 158; Vessberg,
Studien, pp. 132 ff.
“Grueber, o. c. I, p. 521; Sydenham, o. c., p. 162;
Vessberg, Studien, p. 134.
“Grueber, o. c. II, pp. 366 f., 560 f., 564 f., 370 ff.;
Sydenham, o. c., pp. 171 ff.; Vessberg, Studien, pp. 135 ff.
“Grueber, o. c. I, pp. 542 ff.; Sydenham, o. c., pp.
176 ff.; Vessberg, Studien, pp. 138 ff.
“ Cf. Vessberg, Studien, pp. 132 ff.
Fig. 4. Roman male portrait. Museo Nuovo, Rome.
Fig. 5. Tomb releif in the Villa Colonna, Rome. Detail.
71
Digitized by v^ooQle
of the Second Triumvirate. They span Republi-
can to Augustan portraiture. However, thcy arc
not alone in this function, being supported by a
number of other important coin portraits from
the Second Triumvirate, and thus we have an
unusually clear picture of the portrait art of
this period.
The most realistic group of coin-typcs with
Caesar, mainly belonging to the issues of coinage
from 44 and 43 B.C., continue in their piain
rendering of the dictator's prematurely aged
countenance the tradition of the portraits of
Postumius Albinus and Antius Restio. But they
also mark the end of a style, for at the same time
there already appears on the coins struck by
Flaminius Chilo^’ a portrait of Caesar in which
the realism has been toned down and sub-
ordinated to a firmer and more synthetic form.
Our portrait from Montopoli, like the portrait
in the Villa Colonna and the stylistically very
similar portrait in the Museo Nuovo, is probably
at the same stage in the evolution, and all three
might suitably be grouped with Chilo’s image of
Grubber, o. c. I, pp. 565 f.; Sydenham, o. c., p. 180;
Vessberg, Studien, p. 142.
Caesar^*. A datmg of our head to the beginning
of the Second Triumvirate, to c. 40 B.C., would
therefore seem natural.
However, as, inter alia, the series of tomb
reliefs shows^*, the late Republican realism con-
tinues for a long time side by side with the classi-
cism, and if all extemal criteria for dating, such
as form of the bust, dress, inscription and so
forth, are lacking in identifying a portrait, then
one must exercise a certain caution. It is dangerous
to regard the Republican realism as an exclusi-
vely Republican style.
Hence I think we have to reckon with a
certain margin for the date of our head.
Our association of i7 cälvo with the reiief in
the Villa Colonna, which in all probability was
found in or near Rome, and with the head in the
Museo Nuovo, which is undoubtedly of Roman
provenance, makes it perhaps most likely that
our portrait was also a Roman find, which by
way of the Torlonia collections came to be
placed in that family's villino at Montopoli di
Sabina.
“ Cf. Vessberg, Studien, pp. 199 f.
” Cf. Vessberg, Studien, pp. 201 ff.
72
Digitized by v^ooQle
Photos:
O. Ekberg, pp. 11, 18 (Fig. 24a). 28 (Fig. 4Sb), 29 (Figs. 47a,
49b), 55 —59, 69 —70, and photo on tbe cover.
N. Lagergren, pp. 6-10, 12-17, 18 (Figs. 23, 24b, 25), 19-26,
28-29 (excq>t Figs. 45b. 47a, 49b), 30-31, 43, 65 (Fig. 21).
Drawing:
B. Mfflberg, p. 64.
DigitizecJ by v^ooQle
Price: 20 Sw. crowns
Digitized by
Google
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11